Full text of "The synoptic problem : a way through the maze"

See other formats

■7/ ^

•*i^*

THE SY

A Way Through the Maze

Mark Goodacre

tS.ti

Digitized by the Internet Archive
in 2011 with funding from
Duke University Libraries

http://www.archive.org/details/synopticproblemwOOgood

The Synoptic Problem

A Way Through the Maze

Mark Goodacre

^continuum

• %% LONDON • NEW YORK

Published by T & T Clark International

The Tower Building, 1 1 York Road, London SEl 7NX

15 East 26th Street, Suite 1703, NYl

www.tandtclark.com
www.continuum-books.com

All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced or transmitted in
any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, record-
ing or any information storage or retrieval system, without permission in writing
from the publishers.

British Library Cataloguing-in-Publication Data

A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library

Typeset by Sheffield Academic Press

Printed on acid-free paper in Great Britain by The Cromwell Press, Trowbridge,

Wiltshire

Reprinted 2005

ISBN 0-567 080 56 0

Contents

List of Figures and Tables 7

Preface 9

Abbreviations 12

Chapter 1

ENTERING THE MAZE:

STUDYING THE SYNOPTIC PROBLEM 13

Chapter 2

EXPLORING THE MAZE: THE DATA 33

Chapter 3

MARKAN PRIORITY 56

Chapter 4

BUILDING ON MARKAN PRIORITY 84

Chapter 5

Q 106

Chapter 6

THE CASE AGAINST Q 1 22

Chapter 7

EMERGING FROM THE MAZE 162

Further Reading 169

Glossary 171

Bibliography 174

Index of Authors 1 76

Index of Words 1 77

List of figures and tables

Figures

1 . The Two-Source Theory 20

2. The Farrer Theory 22

3. The Griesbach Theory 23

4. Scale of Matthaean Influence on Luke 150

Tables

L Triple Tradition 35

2. Double Tradition 40

3. Special Matthew (M) 43

4. Special Matthew in Triple Tradition Contexts 44

5. Special Luke (L) 45

6. L Material Similar to Matthew and Mark 46

7. When Mark Is Not the Middle Term 53

PREFACE

For many New Testament scholars, studying the Synoptic Problem is
something to avoid at all costs. It is thought to be both complex and
irrelevant. Those who do study it are warned not to allow themselves to
be dragged into a quagmire from which they may never emerge, and
into which they might drag their unwitting students. But those who
have devoted time to studying it find the image of a quagmire unsatis-
factory, and a more appropriate one that of a maze. Mazes are indeed
sometimes complex, but they present a challenge that encourages the
excited adventurer to have some fun. And ultimately they promise,
after some extensive exploration, that there is a way through. I think
that I have found a way through this special maze, and I would like to
take you with me.

Though I hope to provide students with a fresh way into a topic that
is often thought to be impenetrable, this book is written for anyone
with an interest in entering, exploring and emerging from this maze. I
have attempted to make it as accessible as possible by translating all
the Greek and by being liberal with the use of examples, synopses and
summaries, and providing a glossary at the end. This book also has an
associated web site (at http://www.ntgateway.com/maze), which pro-
vides extra work materials like coloured synopses, links to articles and
other materials discussed in the book, and the chance to discuss this
book and the issues raised.

The problem will be taken step by step. We begin by looking at what
the Synoptic Problem is and why it is worth studying it (Chapter 1),
laying out the data as clearly as possible (Chapter 2). The case for the
Priority of Mark's Gospel will then be made (Chapter 3) and its ramifi-
cations explored (Chapter 4). The intriguing, popular 'Q' hypothesis
will be introduced (Chapter 5) and the case against Q presented at the
end (Chapter 6).

Readers should be warned that the solution to the Synoptic Problem
favoured here (the Farrer Theory) is partly orthodox and partly

10 The Synoptic Problem

unorthodox. It argues strongly that Mark's Gospel was the first to be
written, but it also argues against the existence of the Q source. This
unorthodox stance directly affects only the last third of the book (Chap-
ters 5 and 6), but my hope is that everyone will read the whole book.
There are plenty of introductions to the Synoptic Problem that take the
standard view for granted, often failing to give an adequate airing to
alternative viewpoints. Now, whether or not you are sympathetic to the
Q-sceptical view contained here, at least the case against Q is laid out
in a sympathetic and straightforward manner.

Finding a way through the maze has been enjoyable for me not least
because of my partners on the journey. Long before I began work on
this book, my thinking on the Synoptic Problem was strongly influ-
enced by three figures, without any of whom it could not have been
written, Ed Sanders, Michael Goulder and John Muddiman. When I
was an undergraduate in Oxford, Ed Sanders's lectures on the Synoptic
Gospels were fascinating, and I blame him for generating an enthusi-
asm in me for studying the Synoptics that gets ever stronger. He intro-
duced us to the Synopsis of the Gospels and encouraged us to do lots of
colouring, probably the ideal way to immerse oneself in the study of
the Synoptics. (I'll be encouraging my readers to do this themselves in
due course.) But I am also influenced, far more strongly than he is
likely to realize, by my doctoral supervisor Jolin Muddiman of the Uni-
versity of Oxford. And since I began working at the Department of
Theology in the University of Birmingham in 1995 I have been lucky
enough to spend time talking to and learning from Michael Goulder,
who had retired from the Department of Continuing Studies the previ-
ous year. My first book, Goulder and the Gospels, was all about his
ideas. Although I continue to disagree with Michael over several ele-
ments in the discussion of the Synoptic Problem, our agreement is much
more fiandamental. On more than one occasion I have discovered that
some great new idea I have had is actually one of Michael's ideas that
I'd read once and since forgotten.

The encouragement and intellectual stimulation I have received from
others, John Ashton, Stephen Carlson, David Parker, Jeff Peterson,
Chris Rowland and Barbara Shellard has also been invaluable.

There are those too with whom I enjoy different yet complimentary
journeys, my family and friends, and especially my wife Viola who has
helped me to develop many of the insights that are key to my thinking,
while at the same time providing me with a route to sanity and a means

Preface 1 1

by which I can be sure to keep my feet on the ground. And the fact that
our daughters Emily and Lauren always provide the most enjoyable
distraction from my academic work leaves me with no other choice but
to dedicate this book to them.

ABBREVIATIONS

ABD

DBI

ETL

JBL
JSNTSup

NTS
SNTSMS

David Noel Freedman (ed.), The Anchor Bible Dictionary

(New York: Doubleday, 1992)

Dictionary of Biblical Interpretation

Ephemerides theologicae lovanienses

Journal of Biblical Literature

Journal for the Study of the New Testament, Supplement

Series

New Testament Studies

Society for New Testament Studies Monograph Series

Chapter 1

ENTERING THE MAZE:
STUDYING THE SYNOPTIC PROBLEM

1 . Harmonies and Synopses

The traditional Nativity Play is a familiar part of Christmas — little girls
dressed as angels with tinsel halos, shepherds with head-dresses made
from tea-towels, kings with glittering crowns made of foil, the Virgin
Mary dressed in blue holding a doll, and Joseph, in his dressing gown,
looking on. What all such plays have in common is that they are
harmonies of the biblical accounts of the birth of Jesus. They take
some details from Matthew and others from Luke. It is Matthew who
stresses the role of Joseph and Luke who concentrates on Mary. It is
Matthew who has the magi, Luke the shepherds and angels. Only Matt-
hew has the star in the east; only Luke has the census and the manger.
In the Nativity Plays, and for that matter on Christmas cards and advent
calendars too, the distinction between Matthew's Gospel and Luke's is
an irrelevance. There is one story of the birth of Jesus, and that story is
produced by harmonizing the details of each account together.

This is the popular way to read the Gospels. The interest is in the
story of Jesus and not in the peculiarities of each of our four canonical
Gospels. Most of the Jesus films adopt the same course — they har-
monize the events recorded in the Gospels in the attempt to produce a
coherent, dramatic narrative. King of Kings (1961), The Greatest Story
Ever Told (1965), Jesus Christ Superstar (1973), Jesus of Nazareth
(1977) and The Miracle Maker (2000) all, alike, carefully combine
events and details from different Gospels in the service of their nar-
rative. To take just one example, Jesus Christ Superstar features a
scene in which Mary Magdalene, who is characterized as a prostitute,
anoints Jesus not long before his death, and Judas complains about the
cost. This draws together several elements from all four Gospels, an
anonymous woman anointing Jesus in Mark 14 and Matthew 27; an

The Synoptic Problem

anonymous 'sinner' woman anointing Jesus in Luke 7; a mention of
'Mary, called Magdalene' just afterwards in Lk. 8.2; Mary of Bethany
anointing Jesus in John 12; and Judas complaining about the cost in the
same chapter. In watching the simple scene, one would hardly have
guessed the extent to which the sources for its several strands are
scattered in our canonical Gospels.

This way of reading the Gospels is not simply a recent and popular
development. It is the way in which they have been read for most of
their history. It proceeds in part from an embarrassment that there
should be four Gospels in the Bible and not one. If we are to think of
'gospel truth' and the reliability of Scripture, there might seem to be a
problem in the fact that the first four books in the New Testament
announce themselves as the Gospels According to Matthew, Mark,
Luke and John.

This was a problem that was keenly felt from the earliest times and
the Church Fathers, from the second century onwards, often engaged in
the attempt to 'apologize' for the difficulty. One such character was the
apologist Tatian, who dealt with the difficulty at the end of the second
century by composing a harmony of all four Gospels entitled the
Diatessaron, in which details from all four Gospels were woven
together with painstaking care. This was the first of many down the
centuries. Indeed the heyday of such harmonies was probably the nine-
teenth century, when bookshelves were awash with books that were,
essentially, harmonies of the Gospel accounts presented as The Life of
Jesus. Even Charles Dickens wrote a pious Life of our Lord.

But since the late eighteenth century, the harmonies have had a very
important rival. For in 1776, a German scholar, Johann Jakob Gries-
bach, produced the first Synopsis of the Gospels.' A Synopsis is a book
in which parallel accounts in the Gospels are placed side by side for the
sake of comparison, like this:

Matthew H. 2

Mark]. 40

Luke 5.12

And behold, a leper

And a leper

. . .And behold, a man
full of leprosy; and having

having approached Jesus

came to him.

seen Jesus,

worshipped him.

beseeching him and

he fell before his face.

saying.

bending his knee, saying.

saying.

1. J.J. Griesbach, Synopsis Evangeliorum Matlhaei, Marci et Lucae (Halle,
1776).

1 . Entering the Maze 1 5

'Lord, if you will, you are
able to cleanse me'.

to him, 'If you will, you
are able to cleanse me'.

'Lord, if you will, you are
able to cleanse me'.

Now, far from harmonizing the discrepancies, the Synopsis actually
draws attention to them. One can see at a glance here what is similar in
Matthew, Mark and Luke and what is different. Whereas Matthew and
Mark talk about 'a leper', Luke refers to 'a man full of leprosy';
whereas in Mark the leper 'beseeches' Jesus, 'bending his knee', in
Matthew he 'worshipped him', and so on.

Summary

The popular tendency when reading the Gospels is to har-
monize them.

The Gospels have been read in this way since the second
century.

The Gospels can be read in Synopsis, that is, in such a way
that different accounts can be compared and contrasted.

2. The Synoptics and John

Viewing the Gospels in Synopsis has had two key consequences. The
first is the birth of the term 'Synoptic Gospels'. The first three Gospels,
Matthew, Mark and Luke can be arranged in columns so that they
might be 'viewed together' {syn = with; opsis = look at). The account
of the healing of the Leper, quoted above, is not in John. Indeed John
features few of the incidents shared by the other three Gospels, and
when he does feature a parallel story, such as the Feeding of the Five
Thousand (Jn 6), the wording varies so greatly that setting up columns
is a very complex matter.

Summary

• Viewing material in Synopsis involves Matthew, Mark and
Luke but not John. Matthew, Mark and Luke are therefore
called ''Synoptic Gospels'.

The Synoptic Problem

3. The Literary Relationship of the Synoptics

The second, related consequence of the appearance of the Synopsis is
the birth of the Synoptic Problem and it is no coincidence that J.J.
Griesbach, the scholar who produced the first Synopsis, was also the
first to provide a critical solution to the Synoptic Problem.- Before
considering the solutions, however, let us look at the problem. The
Synoptic Problem might be defined as the study of the similarities and
differences of the Synoptic Gospels in an attempt to explain their
literary relationship.

It is a fundamental assumption of the study of the Synoptic Problem
that the first three Gospels share some kind of literary relationship. In
other words, there is some degree of dependence in some direction at a
literary level. Occasionally a dissenting voice will sound, but, on the
whole, this is a firm consensus in scholarship, and perhaps the last one
in the subject — for after this, as we shall see, opinions begin to diverge.
This consensus is based on the fact that there is substantial agreement
between Matthew, Mark and Luke on matters of language and order.
One sees the agreement in language in the example of the leper
(above). Often the agreement is close, as in our next example.^

Matthew 9. 9

Mark 2. 14

Luke 5.27

And having passed on

And

from there, Jesus saw a

he saw Levi son of

he saw a tax-collector

man

Alphaeus

named Levi

seated in the tax-office,

named Matthew, and he

and he

says to him, 'Follow me'.

says to him. 'Follow me'.

said to him, 'Follow me'.

And

And having left everything

having arisen, he

and having arisen, he

followed him.

2. Commentatio qua Marci Evangelium totum e Matthaei et Lucae commen-
tariis decerptum esse monstratur (A demonstration that Mark was written after
Matthew and Luke) (Jena, 1789-90), in Bernard Orchard and Thomas R.W.
Longstaff (eds.), J.J. Griesbach: Synoptic and Text-Critical Studies 1776-1976
(Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1978), pp. 103-35.

3. The term 'says' in both Matthew and Mark here is known as 'the historic
present', a device whereby the evangelists (especially Mark) write about past events
in the present tense. I have preferred to keep the translation in the present tense in
order that one can see differences between use of tense in the synoptics.

1 . Entering the Maze

Some have argued that the closeness in agreement between the Synop-
tics could be due to faithful recording of the committed-to-memory
words of Jesus, but significantly, in cases like this, close agreement is
not limited to the words of Jesus, and it will not do to argue on this
basis that the Gospels are linked only orally. There is agreement in
both narrative material and in sayings material.

It is, nevertheless, worth noting just how close some of the agree-
ment in records of speech is among the Gospels — and records not just
of Jesus' words. This example comes from the preaching of John the
Baptist, this time found only in Matthew and Luke, and so in two
columns:

Mt. 3.7-10

Lk. 3. 7-9

'Offspring of vipers! Who warned you
to flee from the coming wrath? Bear
fruit therefore worthy of repentance and
do not presume to say in yourselves.
"We have Abraham as father"; for I say
to you that God is able from these stones
to raise up children to Abraham. Already
the axe is laid at the root of the trees; for
every tree not producing good fruit is cut
down and cast into the fire'.

'Offspring of vipers! Who warned you
to flee from the coming wrath? Bear
fruit therefore worthy of repentance and
do not begin to say in yourselves,
"We have Abraham as father"; for I say
to you that God is able from these stones
to raise up children to Abraham. Already
the axe is laid at the root of the trees; for
every tree not producing good fruit is cut
down and cast into the fire".

The wording is virtually identical — only the word for 'presume' (Matt-
hew) and 'begin' (Luke) differs. Nor is this an isolated instance. The
reader who picks up the Synopsis will quickly find at random plenty of
examples of close agreement between two or three of the synoptic par-
allel accounts of given instances.

The thesis that this agreement is due to some kind of literary depend-
ence seems to be quickly confirmed by the matter of order. It is striking
that Matthew, Mark and Luke all have substantial similarities in the
way in which they structure their gospels. It is not just that they share
the broad framework of events, John the Baptist — Baptism — Tempta-
tion— Ministry in Galilee — journey to Jerusalem — crucifixion — resur-
rection. What is noticeable is the extent to which incidents and sayings
follow in parallel across two, or sometimes all three Synoptics. Some-
times, these include events that are not in an obvious chronological,

The Synoptic Problem

cause-and-effect relationship. The following sequence illustrates the
point.'*

Matthew

Mark

Luke

Event

16.13-20

8.27-30

9.18-21

Peter's Confession

16.21-23

8.31-33

9.22

Prediction of the Passion

16.24-28

8.34-9.1

9.23-27

On Discipleship

17.1-8

9.2-8

9.28-36

Transfiguration

17.9-13

9.9-13

Coming of Elijah

17.14-20

9.14-29

9.37-43a

Healing of an Epileptic

17.22-23

9.30-32

9.43b-45

Second Passion Prediction

17.24-27

Temple Tax

18.1-5

9.33-37

9.46-48

Dispute about Greatness

9.38-41

9.49-50

Strange Exorcist

18.6-9

9.42-48

On Offences

This example, covering just over a chapter in Matthew and Mark,
and a little less than a chapter in Luke, is typical. In incident after inci-
dent, two or three of the Synoptics agree on order. There is variation, of
course. Luke's account of the Rejection at Nazareth is earlier in his
Gospel (4.16-30) than the parallel account in Mark (6.1 -6a) or Matthew
(13.53-8). Matthew's version of the Healing of the Paralytic comes
later on (9.1-8) than does that incident in Mark (2.1-12) or Luke (5.17-
26). But the order of accounts, or pericopae, always converges again
after a while. It is usually held that this state of affairs is simply too
great either for coincidence or for an orally remembered record. The
explanation has to be, on some level, a literary one.

Some, no doubt, will feel that a firmly fixed oral tradition behind the
Gospels could explain these data, claiming perhaps that the obsession
with written texts is a modem preoccupation. Here, though, we need to
notice that there are hints in all three Synoptic Gospels themselves that
the connections between them are of a direct, literary kind. First, both
Matthew and Mark agree with each other on the interesting narrator's
aside in the apocalyptic discourse, 'Let the reader understand' (Mt.
24.15//Mk 13.14, the same three words in Greek). This points clearly
and self-consciously to texts that are read^ and to some kind literary
relationship between these two Gospels.

4. Where a space is left, this means that the incident is not in parallel here in
the Gospel concerned.

5. 1 do not think, however, that we should rule out the possibility, even

1 . Entering the Maze 1 9

Further, Luke's Gospel begins with a literary preface in which he
mentions the 'narratives' of his predecessors, implying he sees his task
'to write' a Gospel as being influenced by and critical of their attempts
(Lk. 1.1-4). If there is one thing that seems clear, it is that there is some
kind of literary relationship among the Synoptic Gospels.

Summary

Viewing material in Synopsis has given birth to the Synoptic

Problem.

The Synoptic Problem is the study of the similarities and

differences of the Synoptic Gospels in an attempt to explain

their literary relationship.

The Synoptics feature some very close agreement in both

wording and order.

The scholarly consensus is that this suggests a literary

relationship between them.

4. The History of the Investigation

This literary relationship is what constitutes the Synoptic Problem. As
soon as one has noticed the similarities and the differences among the
Synoptics, one is naturally eager to find an explanation. Why the
varieties in agreement in language and order among them? Could any
of the evangelists have known the work of one (or more) of the others?
Are they dependent on older, now lost written sources? It is the attempt
to answer these questions that has been meat and drink to Synoptic
scholars for the last two hundred years or so. Indeed, it could be said
that the history of the investigation of the Synoptic Problem is the
history of proposed solutions to it.

J.J. Griesbach, as we have already seen, not only produced the first
Synopsis but also produced the first real solution to the Synoptic

likelihood, that the Gospels were primarily designed to be read aloud to groups of
people, in which case the reference here to 'the reader" is a direct address to the one
reading aloud to the people, perhaps encouraging him or her to place special stress
on this part of the text. The point about these being texts with a literary relationship
of course remains even if these texts were read aloud. We are still talking about text
to text relationship rather than about oral tradition to text relationship.

The Synoptic Problem

Problem, the solution that bears his name^ and which has recently been
revived, as we will see in more detail later on. It is not his theory,
though, that has dominated the discipline. Rather, the history of the
study of the Synoptic Problem is largely identical with the history of
the emergence of what came to be the dominant hypothesis, the Two-
Source Theory.

a. The Two-Source Theory

The Two-Source Theory has two facets: the Priority of Mark and the Q
hypothesis. It solves the Synoptic Problem by postulating independent
use of Mark's Gospel by both Matthew and Luke, who are also held to
have had independent access to a now lost document that scholars call
'Q'. Roughly speaking, Matthew and Luke are dependent on Mark in
all those passages where there is agreement between Matthew, Mark
and Luke; and they are dependent on Q in all those passages where
there is agreement between just Matthew and Luke. It is represented
diagrammatically like this:

Mark

Fig. 1 . The Two-Source Theory

The two facets of this theory, Markan Priority and Q, both emerged
relatively early in the history of the discipline. That is, they were
already well established by the beginning of the twentieth century.
Although Markan Priority is really the older of the two, advocated
already at the end of the eighteenth century, Q was well established by
the end of the nineteenth century and often at this stage called 'Logia'
(Sayings), in German Logienquelle (Sayings Source). Indeed the term

6. See n. 2 above. But to complicate matters, it is now thought that the 'Gries-
bach Theor>'' was actually conceived first by Henry Owen, Observations on the Four
Gospels (London: T. Payne, 1 764).

1 . Entering the Maze 21

'Q' is thought to have originated as the first letter of the German word
Quelle, meaning source.^

Right down to the present, this has remained the most popular way to
solve the Synoptic Problem. It has been finely tuned, has been given
many variations, and has been challenged fi-om many quarters, but this
basic two-pronged hypothesis has remained fairly effectively intact. In
Germany it is still very much what one might call 'critical orthodoxy'.
Famously, in the mid 1960s, one biblical critic spoke about abandoning
use of the term 'hypothesis' to describe it altogether. 'We can in fact
regard it as an assured finding', he said.**

Summary

• The Two-Source Theory is the most popular way of solving
the Synoptic Problem, especially among German scholars

• According to the Two-Source Theory, Matthew and Luke
independently used two sources, Mark and an hypothetical
source called Q.

b. The Farrer Theory

The Two-Source Theory has had a rougher ride, though, in Great
Britain and the United States. In Great Britain a steady challenge has
been mounted over the last half century or so fi"om those who, while
accepting Markan Priority, are doubtful about Q. For this group, Luke
reads not only Mark but also Matthew:

7. Those interested in pursuing the history of the investigation of the problem
in more detail might find W.G. Kiimmel. Introduction to the New Testament (ET;
London: SCM Press, 1966), pp. 37-42, a good starting-point. For the pre-history of
the Synoptic Problem broadly conceived, see David L. Dungan, A History of the
Synoptic Problem: The Canon, the Text, the Composition and the Interpretation of
the Gospels (New York: Doubleday, 1999).

8. Willi Marxsen, Introduction to the New Testament: An Approach to its
Problems (ET; Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1968), p. 1 18.

22 The Synoptic Problem

Mark

Luke

Fig. 2. The Farrer Theory

This movement began with the Oxford scholar Austin Farrer, whose
seminal article 'On Dispensing with Q' appeared in 1955.^ Farrer
claims that if it can be shown to be plausible that Luke knew Matthew
as well as Mark, then the Q theory becomes superfluous to require-
ments— one can 'dispense' with Q. But Farrer only wrote the one
article on this topic. Michael Goulder, originally a pupil of Austin
Farrer, has become the key advocate for this theory, devoting two
books and many articles to arguing the case with vigour.'" Over the
years, the theory has gathered a handful of prominent supporters. In
Great Britain it is this thesis that has become the Two-Source Theory's
greatest rival.

c. The Griesbach Theory

In the United States, the main contemporary challenger to the Two-
Source Theory is currently the Griesbach Theory, already mentioned,
which was revived by William Farmer in his book The Synoptic Prob-
lem in 1964." This theory dispenses with both facets of the Two-
Source Theory, not only Q but also Markan Priority. Mark therefore
comes third and uses both Matthew, written first, and Luke, who read
Matthew. It might be represented diagrammatically like this:

9. Austin Fairer, 'On Dispensing With Q', in D.E. Nineham (ed.), Studies in
the Gospels: Essays in Memory of R.H. Lighlfoot (Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1955),
pp. 55-88 (reproduced on-line at Mark Goodacre led.], The Case Against Q: A
Synoptic Problem Web Site, http://NTGateway.eom/Q).

10. Michael D. Goulder, Midrash and Lection in Matthew (London: SPCK,
1974) and Luke: A New Paradigm (JSNTSup, 20; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic
Press, 1989). For further bibliography on the Farrer Theory, see Goodacre, The
Case Against Q (previous note).

11. W.R. Farmer, The Synoptic Problem: A Critical Analysis (Macon, GA:
Mercer University Press, 2nd edn, 1 976).

1 . Entering the Maze 23

Matthew

Mark

Fig. 3. The Griesbach Theory

A weighty and vocal minority continue to advocate this hypothesis
with energy and application.

Summary

The two most important rivals to the Two-Source Theory are

the Farrer Theory and the Griesbach Theory.

The Farrer Theoty advocates Markan Priority but dispenses

with Q by postulating Luke's knowledge of Matthew as well

as Mark.

The Griesbach Theoty advocates neither Markan Priority nor

Q, but postulates Matthean Priority, Luke's use of Matthew

and Mark's use of both.

d. The Contemporary Situation

It is worth stressing, though, that however vocal the minorities are that
present these alternative hypotheses, these do nevertheless remain
minority theories. Even in Great Britain and the United States, where
the Synoptic Problem is still often openly discussed, the Two-Source
Theory is accepted without question by the vast majority of scholars in
the discipline. If one were to take off the shelf at random almost any
contemporary book on the Gospels, that book is likely to assume the
correctness of the Two-Source Theory. It is a matter that is simply
taken for granted in much of the scholarship, a mind set that does not
often get suspended, even for a moment.

There is actually an interesting phenomenon in contemporary Gospel
scholarship, a division between those who have written books and
articles directly dealing with the Synoptic Problem and those who have
not. Among those who might be called experts on the Synoptic

24 The Synoptic Problem

Problem, there is a variety of opinion — a good proportion believe in
the Two-Source Theory but an equally high proportion question at least
some aspect of it. On the other hand, among those who write books on
the Gospels not dealing directly with the Synoptic Problem, there tends
to be a kind of blithe confidence, almost a complacency over the cor-
rectness of the Two-Source Theory. It is a interesting state of affairs. It
will be exciting to see whether in this new century the dissenting
voices will be stilled by the weight of an overwhelming consensus
opinion, or whether the doubters' views will steadily impinge on, and
gradually transform their opponents' determined stance.

Summafy

The vast majority of New Testament scholars accept the Two-
Source Theory.

Among experts on the Synoptic Problem, the Two-Source
Theory is still controversial.

5. Why Study the Synoptic Problem?

The thought that this kind of question will continue to rage on for many
years may of course fill some with horror. Surely, after all this time, a
final solution ought to have been settled upon? Or, since a solution that
satisfies everyone has not been found, it might be said that it is time to
surrender the hope of achieving a complete consensus and to devote
one's labour to more profitable enterprises. But the Synoptic Problem
will not go away. It continues to exert a fascination and an importance
like nothing else in biblical studies. One might say that there are,
broadly, four reasons — historical, theological, cultural and literary —
that make the study of the Synoptic Problem worthwhile.

a. History

One of the main reasons for the continued interest is undoubtedly the
matter of historical enquiry. For most New Testament scholars, in spite
of the rise of new, sometimes profitable ways of reading texts, histori-
cal questions remain important and interesting. How historically accu-
rate are our Gospels? Is one more reliable or authentic than any of the
others? Is there any way of locating traditions within the Gospels that

1 . Entering the Maze

may represent a more dependable strand than others? Questions like
this, whether consciously or otherwise, have always been at the heart of
study of the Synoptic Problem.

Many have used the Synoptic Problem as a means to help in the
quest of the historical Jesus. First one finds the most reliable sources
and then one uses them to reconstruct Jesus' life. This has been particu-
larly the case in relation to the Two-Source Theory. In much of the
older scholarship, for example, Mark's Gospel was stressed as a valu-
able, primitive historical source. More recently, in some American
scholarship there has been a great stress on Q as the most primitive
'lost gospel', reconstructions of which provide an especially valuable
source of information on the historical Jesus.

It does need to be noticed, though, that there are difficulties with this
quest. Its basic assumption, that earliest is best, is open to challenge. A
truer word may be spoken by one who long post-dates the events he or
she is describing than by one who writes closer to those same events.
Further, given the variety of opinion on the Synoptic Problem, one is
really walking across a minefield if one relies on one particular theory,
whether the Two-Source Theory or another, in reconstructing the life
of the historical Jesus. Some recent studies on Jesus thus avoid com-
mitting themselves on synoptic theories altogether.

Nevertheless, doing historical study of the New Testament period is
not simply a matter of looking at the historical Jesus. There are other
historical questions that are interesting. The issue of whether or not
Mark preceded Matthew is itself a fascinating question. Let us illustrate
this with another example, an example that, incidentally, illustrates
nicely the way in which different evangelists produce different infor-
mation on the same character — all say that the man in this story is rich,
Matthew alone says that he is young and Luke alone says that he is a
ruler:

Matthew 19.16-17

Mark 10.17-18

Luke 18.18-19

And behold.

And as he was setting out

And

one having

on the way, one having

a certain ruler

approached him

run and knelt before him

said. "Teacher.

asked him, "Goot/ teacher.

asked him, ' Gooc^ teacher.

what ^'ooJ shall I do in

what shall I do in

what having done

order that I might have

order that I might inherit

shall I inherit

eternal life?' And he

eternal life? And Jesus

eternal life?" And Jesus

said to him, 'Why do

said to him. 'Why do you

said to him, 'Why do you

The Synoptic Problem

you ask me concerning
good? One there is who
is good'.

call me

good? No-one is

good except God alone'

call me

good? No-one is

good except God alone'

What is interesting is the position of the first 'good' in Matthew on
the one hand and Mark and Luke on the other. Most believe that
Matthew is using Mark here and that he is troubled by the implication
of the question 'Why do you call me good?' Matthew therefore re-
phrases (very slightly) in such a way as to change the question and
avoid the difficult implication that Jesus might be admitting to not
being wholly 'good'. Here, perhaps, we witness an interesting moment
in the development of Christian doctrine, for in the change from the
unembarrassed brashness of Mark to the more measured, reverential
Matthew, we see perceptions of Jesus' identity subtly changing.'^

But then if one believes instead in Matthaean Priority, the matter is
reversed — Mark (or Luke and then Mark) makes the earlier, reverential
Matthew more 'gritty' and realistic. The move from one form of words
to another, though perhaps more surprising, remains just as interesting.
And there are many such striking differences between the Synoptics.
Let us take another illustration:

Matthew 8.25-26

Mark 4.38-39

Luke 8.24-25

And the disciples, having

And they

And having

approached him.

approached him they

awoke him saying,

awake him and say to him.

awoke him saying,

'Lord, save!

'Teacher, do you not care

'Master Master,

We are perishing!'

that we are perishing?"

we are perishing!'

* Then, having got up, he

And having awoken, he

rebuked the winds and

rebuked the wind and said

rebuked the wind and

the sea.

to the sea, 'Be silent! Be

the raging of the water.

muzzled!' And the wind

And they

and there was

ceased, and there was

ceased, and there was a

a great calm'.

a great calm.

calm.

*And he says to them.

And he said to them.

Why are you afraid.

'Why are you so afraid?

ye of little faith? '

Have you still no faith?*

"Where is your faith?'

12. For an excellent discussion of these issues, see Peter Head, Christology and
the Synoptic Problem: An Argument for Markan Priority (SNTSMS, 94; Cam-
bridge: Cambridge University Press, 1997).

1 . Entering the Maze 27

One cannot help noticing a contrast here between Mark on the one
hand and Matthew and Luke on the other. Mark's Jesus shows no
respect for the disciples: 'Have you still no faith?' And the disciples,
apparently, show no respect for Jesus: 'Do you not care...?' In both
Matthew and Luke there is more reverence. In Matthew they have
'little faith', not none, and in Luke the question is, 'Where is your
faith?', as if this is but a temporary lapse. Likewise, in neither Matthew
nor Luke do they ask the insulting question, 'Do you not care. . .?'

Again, then, one finds significant differences revealed as soon as
parallel accounts are placed in Synopsis. It is seeing the accounts in
parallel that focuses important issues. And one inevitably finds oneself
asking interesting historical questions: Why are Matthew and Luke
more reverential in their portrait of Jesus? Why does Mark apparently
paint the disciples of Jesus in such a negative light?

Summary

• Scholars use the

Synoptic Problem in

an attempt to solve

historical puzzles.

• The Two-Source

Theory is sometimes

used to help in the

quest of the historical Jesus.

• The Synoptic Problem asks interesting

historical questions

about the Gospel

s and their place in

the development of

Christianity.

b. Theology

Such questions are not, of course, only of historical interest, for clearly
they have important theological dimensions. Indeed synoptic study, by
accentuating the differences between the Gospels, can help to sharpen
important theological questions. To follow on from the above
examples, what does synoptic study tell us about shades of first-century
Christology? What does it tell us about the way the disciples, some of
whom became the leaders of the Church, were viewed?

The way in which the Synoptic Problem can help to focus theologi-
cal issues might be illustrated from a famous synoptic comparison. The
institution of the Eucharist is found not only in the Synoptics but also
in Paul (1 Cor. 1 1). This is an excerpt:

The Synoptic Problem

Matthew

Mark 14.25-24

Luke 22.20

/ Corinthians

26.27-28

11.25

And after he had

And likewise (he

taken the cup and

took) the cup after

given thanks, he

supper,

supper.

gave it to them

saying, 'Drink

and they all drank

saying.

from it, all.

from it. And he
said to them.

For this is my

'This is my

'This cup is the

blood of the

new covenant in

covenant which is

my blood, which

my blood. Do this,

shed for many /or

shed for many'.

is shed for you'.

as often as you

the forgiveness of

drink, in my

sins'.

memory".

There is a complex web of interrelated material here, perhaps largely
because we are dealing with a liturgical text, something that has been
repeated over and over again, with variations, in different locations,
from the thirties onwards. The comparison between the four accounts
draws attention to several interesting theological points. Matthew alone
has 'for the forgiveness of sins'. Luke and Paul alone have 'new cove-
nant' and Paul alone here has 'in my memory'. It is the analysis of this
kind of passage, and the attempt to explain both the similarities and the
differences, that gives the study of the Synoptic Problem one of its
great attractions.

At the very least, one notices that there is not one unanimous picture
of 'the Eucharist' or 'Christology' in early Christianity. The agree-
ments and disagreements draw attention to the fact that there was a
dialogue going on in the first century, a dialogue that spawned the
controversies of future years, and which, more importantly, can help us
to focus some of our own theological questions.

Thus the use of the Synopsis is potentially a powerful tool for aiding
proper theological reflection. The harmonizing of texts can be a damag-
ing means of interweaving subtle personal agendas into the rephrasing
of disparate elements — and robbing the texts of their vitality. What is
exciting about studying texts in Synopsis is the matter of stressing the
differences between them, and asking how one might react theologi-
cally to them.

1 . Entering the Maze 29

Summary

The Synoptic Problem draws attention to historical questions
that in turn give rise to theological questions.
The Synoptic Problem, by drawing attention to differences
between parallel texts, can stimulate theological reflection.

c. Cultural Factors

The difficulty with such perspectives, however, is that they will appear
somewhat old-fashioned to the reader interested in contemporary, post-
modem ways of reading the Gospels. Recent years have seen the rise,
for example, of reader-response criticism, which tends to place stress
on the recipient of the text (the contemporary reader) rather than the
originator of the text (the author). Does the Synoptic Problem have
anything to offer to such readers? Or is it only for those still stuck in
the antiquated enterprise of doing historical-critical work on the New
Testament?

The answer to this question is that as traditionally defined, the
Synoptic Problem has very little to offer to those interested in contem-
porary approaches. In other words, those writing on the Synoptic Prob-
lem tend to focus on historical-critical questions. For them the goal is
to provide a perfect solution to the problem of who wrote first, who
copied from whom, and whether there are any lost documents.

But this need not remain the status quo. Contemporary, culturally
relevant study of the Synoptic Problem may take off in other directions,
and it is may be that this is where the future of the discipline lies. It is
worth noting, for example, that, in spite of the proliferation of narra-
tive-critical, reader-response and literary-critical readings of each of
our Gospels, at present there is little that attempts to apply such meth-
ods to parallel texts in Synopsis. This is a weakness of the current
scene, in which scholars have become so besotted with responding to
texts in isolation from one another that they have forgotten that the texts
have, and have always been perceived as having, an intimate interrela-
tionship.

Of course, at this stage it is difficult to know what study of the
Synoptic Problem that is sympathetic to contemporary methodologies
might look like. For those interested in the way that the Bible is used in
culture one obvious starting point might be the realization with which
we began this chapter, that the popular perception of the Gospels still

30 The Synoptic Problem

involves a tendency towards the harmonizing of different texts. The
writing of harmonies of the Gospels did not, after all, die a death as
soon as Griesbach produced the first Synopsis. On the contrary, one
only needs a passing acquaintance with contemporary representations
of 'the Jesus story' to notice that harmonizing is alive and well. In such
circumstances, there is a wealth of research waiting to be done on the
way in which Jesus films, for example, have combined and conflated
synoptic (and Johannine) data, study that will no doubt prove not only
to be generated by awareness of the Synoptic Problem, but which may
also, in turn, shed fresh light on it.

The application of newer approaches to the Synoptic Problem may
be the best hope for its future, particularly if we are to avoid the
endless repetition of some mistakes, going round in the same circles,
investigating the same texts in the same way. This is a challenge for the
new century, and we will return to the question in the Conclusion
below.

Summary

Scholars of the Synoptic Problem rarely engage with new
methods of reading the Gospels, like narrative-criticism.
The application of contemporary critical methods to the
Synoptic Problem is potentially exciting and challenging.

d. The Literary Puzzle

But if the historical dimension of the Synoptic Problem is what has
exercised the minds of scholars for the last two hundred years, it is
worth noting that this study is worth doing for its own sake, and needs
no other reason than that it is enormously good fun. In other words, the
Synoptic Problem is an intriguing phenomenon for study in its own
right — and it is a form of study that needs no apology. For in the
Synoptic Problem one has, without doubt, one of the most fascinating
literary puzzles in world history. There are plenty of examples in litera-
ture from all cultures of different accounts of similar events, of com-
plex interweaving of sources and of uncertainties about origin and
dependence. Indeed, there are good examples of these phenomena
elsewhere in the Bible, as in the overlap in the Old Testament between
Kings and Chronicles, or between Isaiah 36-39 and 2 Kings 18-20.

1 . Entering the Maze 3 1

Yet there is nothing to match the Synoptic Problem for the sheer con-
tours, variations, depths and shape of the discipline. Those who think
that they have mastered it regularly discover fresh complications. Those
who believe that they can explain all the data then come across an
argument that appears more plausible than their own.

Summary

Above all, the Synoptic Problem is interesting in its own right
as a fascinating literary enigma.

6. Summary and Conclusion

At the end of each chapter in this book there is a summary in which all
the most important elements in the discussion will be underlined. So
far, we have discovered the following:

(a) The popular way to read the Gospels has been to harmonize
them with one another. However, for the last two hundred
years. Gospel harmonies have been rivalled by Synopses of
the Gospels, in which the Gospels are placed side by side for
the purposes of careful comparison.

• The Synopsis gives birth to the term Synoptic Gospels,
Matthew, Mark and Luke. This is because there are
extensive agreements between Matthew, Mark and
Luke, but much less agreement between these Gospels
and John.

• The Synopsis also gives birth to the Synoptic Problem,
an enterprise that studies the similarities and differ-
ences among the Synoptic Gospels in a bid to find an
explanation for their interrelationship.

(b) The dominant solution to the Synoptic Problem is the Two-
Source Theory, which supposes that Matthew and Luke both
used Mark {the Priority of Mark), but that they also used an
hypothetical source, 'Q '.

• The two major alternatives are the Farrer Theory,
which affirms Markan Priority but dispenses with Q,
and the Grieshach Theory, which rejects both Markan
Priority and Q.

32 The Synoptic Problem

• Historical: solving the Synoptic Problem helps one to
answer historical questions, questions about reliable
sources of information on the historical Jesus and
questions about the development of early Christianity.

• Theological: examining the Synoptic Problem encour-
ages theological reflection about the interaction
between the Gospel texts.

• Contemporary: although not currently popular, there
are ways in which the Synoptic Problem might profita-
bly interact with contemporary approaches to the New
Testament, like narrative-criticism.

• The Literary Puzzle: the Synoptic Problem is probably
the most fascinating literary enigma of all time.

Let us, then, having entered the maze, begin to explore it. Before
doing this, though, readers should be warned. They should not be under
any illusions. Study of the Synoptic Problem sometimes feels like
walking through a maze that is in a constant state of change. Workers
are busy constructing new walls even as one is finding the way through.
But despite this, entering the maze is more than worthwhile. It is a
challenging yet rewarding academic puzzle. And that this most fasci-
nating of literary enigmas should happen to concern accounts of one of
the most important historical figures ever to have lived gives the
Synoptic Problem, to say the least, an addesd thrilling dimension.

Chapter 2
EXPLORING THE MAZE: THE DATA

1 . Introduction

Before looking any further at attempts to solve the Synoptic Problem, it
is essential to be clear about the basic data. What kind of material does
one find in the Synoptic Gospels? Is it easily classifiable? Is there a
great deal of variety? Is it impossibly complex? The reader anxious
over such questions will be glad to hear the good news that the
majority of the material is easily classified into four major types, each
of which is fairly self-explanatory. The types of material tend to be
called Triple Tradition, Double Tradition, Special Matthew and Special
Luke. There are some complications, and we will come to these in due
course, but for the time being it is important to grasp that the vast
majority of material in the Synoptics is easily classified into one of
these four types. In a moment we will begin to take each kind of
material in turn. But first, let me recommend a task to all newcomers to
the Synoptic Problem, a task that will help familiarize you with the
Synopsis, introducing you to the different kinds of agreement and
disagreement among them.

2. Task: Colouring the Synopsis

In order to do this task, you need a Synopsis of the Gospels' and some
coloured pencils or crayons. If you cannot get hold of a Synopsis

1 . If you can read Greek there are essentially two choices for Synopses of the
Gospels: Albert Huck. Synopsis of the First Three Gospels (fundamentally revised
by Heinrich Greeven; Tubingen: J.C.B. Mohr [Paul Siebeck], 13th edn, 1981) — this
is known as 'Huck-Greeven': or Kurt Aland. Synopsis Quattuor Evangeliorum
(Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft. 15th edn, 1996. 1997). For those without
Greek. I recommend either K. Aland (ed.). Synopsis of the Four Gospels (English;
Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft. 1985) or Burton H. Throckmorton, Jr, Gospel

34 The Synoptic Problem

straight away, try photocopying some of the sample Synopses in this
booic, or, if you have access to the Internet, you can print sample
Synopses from there. Indeed, if you have access to the Internet, you
will also be able to look at some samples of coloured Synopsis on this
book's web site."

Find a parallel passage, print or photocopy it and look at similarities
and differences between Matthew, Mark and Luke. You might like to
begin straight away on the passages we will be using as examples in
this chapter. These are:

Mt. 9.9//Mk 2.14//Lk. 5.27 (Levi)

Mt. 3.7-1 0//Lk. 3.7-9 (John the Baptist's Preaching)

Mt. 7.3-5//Lk. 6.41-43 (Log and Speck)

Mt. 3.13-17//Mk 1.9-Il//Lk. 3.21-22 (Baptism)

Mt. 14.34-36//Mk 6.53-56 (HeaHng at Gennesaret)

Mk 12.41-44//Lk. 21.1-4 (Widow's Mite)

Mt. 13.31-32//Mk4.30-32//Lk. 13.18-19 (Mustard Seed)

Now begin colouring. Use one colour for words found only in
Matthew, one colour for words found only in Mark and one colour for
words found only in Luke. You should use one colour for words found
in both Matthew and Luke but not in Mark, one colour for words found
in Mark and Luke but not in Matthew, one colour for words found in
Matthew and Luke but not in Mark, and one colour for words found in
all three.

Different individuals have different tastes and so use different
schemes, but the one that I have found most usefial in several years of
intensive Synopsis colouring is based on the three primary colours, one
for each Synoptist, and the secondary colours that arise from com-
bining them. I strongly recommend that you use this system in your
colouring of the Synopsis, not least because I will illustrate how the
different kinds of data appear in the rest of this chapter by drawing
attention to these colours, but also because it is a system that anyone
who has done any elementary mixing of paint will be familiar with:

Matthew: blue
Mark: red
Luke: yellow

Parallels: A Comparison of the Synoptic Gospels (Nashville, TN: Thomas Nelson,
1993).

2. http://www.ntgateway.com/maze.

2. Exploring The Maze

Matthew + Mark: purple [i.e. blue + red ]
Matthew + Luke: green [i.e. blue + yellow ]
Mark + Luke: orange [i.e. red + yellow ]

Matthew + Mark + Luke: brown [ i.e. blue + red + yellow ]

The look of your Synopsis will depend very much on which passage
you have chosen to colour. And the spread of colours in each of the
passages will help you to see the characteristics of each of the different
kinds of material that we are now ready to discuss. So, having begun to
familiarize ourselves with the Synopsis, let take a closer look at the
different kinds of material we find there.

3. Triple Tradition

The first kind of synoptic material tends to be called Triple Tradition
and we have already, in Chapter 1, seen several examples of it. It
involves cases where a pericope is featured in all three Synoptics.
Hence the Synopsis has at these points three columns — as above in the
case of the Leper, the Call of Levi/Matthew (for which see also below),
the Stilling of the Stonn and the Rich Young Ruler.

There are many famous examples of Triple Tradition material and
they include the following:

Table 1 . Triple Tradition

Matthew

Mark

Luke

Event

8.1-4

1.40-45

5.12-16

Leper

9.1-8

2.1-12

5.17-26

Paralytic

9.9-13

2.13-17

5.27-32

Call of Levi/Matthew

9.14-17

2.18-22

5.33-39

Fasting, New Wine. Patches

12.1-8

2.23-28

6.1-5

Plucking Grain on the Sabbath

12.9-14

3.1-6

6.6-11

Man with Withered Hand

10.1-4

3.13-19

6.12-16

Choosing of the Twelve

12.46-50

3.31-35

8.19-21

Jesus* Mother and Brothers

13.1-23

4.1-20

8.4-15

Parable of the Sower

8.23-27

4.35-41

8.22-25

Calming of the Storm

8.28-34

5.1-20

8.26-39

Gerasene Demoniac

9.18-26

5.21-43

8.40-56

Jairus's Daughter and Woman

14.13-21

6.30-44

9.10-17

Feeding of Five Thousand

16.13-20

8.27-30

9.18-21

Peter's Confession

17.1-8

9.2-8

9.28-36

Transfiguration

17.14-20

9.14-29

9.37-43

Epileptic Boy

The Synoptic Problem

Matthew

Mark

Luke

Event

19.13-15

10.13-16

18.15-17

Little Children

19.16-30

10.17-31

18.18-30

Rich Young Ruler

20.29-34

10.46-52

18.35-43

Blind Bartimaeus

21.1-9

11.1-10

19.28-38

Triumphal Entry

21-28

11-16

20-24

Passion Narrative

This is a large body of material. It contains a substantial amount of
sayings material, including the Parable of the Sower and the Parable of
the Wicked Husbandmen (Mt. 21.33-46//Mk 12.1-12//Lk. 20.9-19). It
also contains much narrative material — it is especially rich in healing
and miracle stories (Leper; Paralytic; Bartimaeus; Feeding of the Five
Thousand; Stilling of the Storm, to mention just a few).

Let us then remind ourselves of how this material appears in the
Synopsis:

Matthew 9.9

Mark 2.14

Luke 5.27

And having passed on

And

from there, Jesus saw a

he saw

man

Levi son of Alphaeus

a tax-collector named
Levi

seated in the tax-office,

seated in the tax-office.

named Matthew,

and he says to him.

and he said to him.

'Follow me'. And

'Follow me'. And having

having

left everything and having

arisen, he followed him.

If you have not already done so, now is the time to colour this piece
of Synopsis. This will help you to see the way in which the Synoptics
agree and disagree. Most fundamentally, there is substantial agreement
between all three (for example, 'seated in the tax-office'; 'Follow me';
'having arisen, he followed him'). If you are using the colouring
scheme suggested earlier, these passages will be brown. It is also the
case, however, that Matthew and Mark sometimes agree together
against Luke (purple). They both begin 'And having passed on', but
Luke does not. Similarly, they both have 'he says to him' but Luke has
'he said'. Further, Mark and Luke agree together against Matthew on a
key point of the story, naming the man Levi rather than Matthew
(orange). Matthew and Luke also agree together against Mark, but less

2. Exploring The Maze

obviously — ^they have 'named' and omit some of the same material
('son of Alphaeus', etc.).

This general phenomenon is a key feature of the Triple Tradition —
Mark is the middle term among the Synoptics. There is substantial
agreement between all three Synoptics, some agreement between
Matthew and Mark against Luke, some agreement between Mark and
Luke against Matthew, but less agreement between Matthew and Luke
against Mark. When the Synopsis has been coloured, the pattern con-
tains lots of brown, some purple, some orange but little green. The
pattern therefore looks like this:

MATTHEW

MARK

LUKE

MATTHEW

MARK

LUKE

That is to say (to repeat) that we have agreements between Matthew,
Mark and Luke, between Mark and Luke alone and between Matthew
and Luke alone. If you have done your colouring, you will see in Triple
Tradition fair amounts of brown, purple and orange, but much less
green. It is Mark, then, that tends to be the common element, the
'middle term'.

This situation is true not just in the wording but also in the arrange-
ment of material. Triple Tradition has broadly the same order across the
three Synoptics, and this order tends to be identical with Mark's order.
On occasions, Luke places an incident differently. Mt. 12.46-50//Mk
3.31-35//Lk. 8.19-21 (Mother and Brothers), for example, is Triple
Tradition material that occurs before the Parable of the Sower in
Matthew and Mark, but a little while after it in Luke. On other occa-
sions Matthew places an incident differently. The Healing of Jairus's
Daughter and the Woman with the haemorrhage (Mt. 9.18-26//Mk
5.21-43//Lk. 8.40-56), for example, is placed just after the Question
about Fasting in Matthew (9.14-17), the parallel to which comes much
earlier in both Mk (2. 1 8-22) and Luke (5.33-39).

The Synoptic Problem

The striking thing about Triple Tradition is, however, that it is rare
for both Matthew and Luke to place the same incident differently. One
thus has the following pattern in the order of Triple Tradition: either
Matthew, Mark and Luke all agree, or Matthew and Mark agree to-
gether against Luke, or Mark and Luke agree together against Matthew.
It is unusual to find Matthew and Luke agreeing together against Mark.
In other words, Mark is also the middle term in the question of the
order of Triple Tradition material, just as it was in the question of the
wording of parallel pericopae. Again, this is the pattern:

MATTHEW

MARK

LUKE

MATTHEW

MARK

LUKE

A corollary of this is the most striking feature of Triple Tradition
material, that if one were to isolate this material from all the rest, one
would have something closely resembling a complete Gospel, and this
Gospel would look similar to Mark. One finds John the Baptist, Jesus'
Baptism and Temptation; the announcement of the kingdom and the
call of the disciples (all Mk 1 with parallels in Mt. 3-4 and Lk. 3-4); a
ministry in Galilee (Mk 1-9 with parallels in Matthew and Luke); a
journey to Jerusalem (Mk 10-11 and parallels) and ministry in Jeru-
salem (Mk 1 1-13 and parallels); followed by a Passion Narrative (Mk
14-15 and parallels) and Resurrection account (Mk 16 and parallels).
The same is not true of any of the other kinds of material that we will
be isolating for comment below. This is therefore a feature that needs
to be strongly noted. Every solution of the Synoptic Problem must take
this feature of the material seriously. Indeed it is the Triple Tradition
that is the necessary starting point in any investigation of the Synoptic
Problem, and it will be the main subject of Chapter 3 below, on the
theory of Markan Priority.

2. Exploring The Maze

Summary

three

Triple Tradition pericopae are those found in all
Synoptics. Here, the Synopsis will be in three columns.
The order and wording of this material is similar across the
three Synoptics.

This means that there are substantial agreements in wording
and order between Matthew, Mark and Luke, between Mark
and Luke and between Mark and Matthew. There are only
minor agreements between Matthew and Luke against Mark.
Mark is, in other words, the middle term. If the colouring
scheme suggested above is followed, the Synopsis will feature
a good deal of brown, some purple and some orange. There is
usually relatively little green.

4. Double Tradition

The second kind of synoptic material is found in Matthew and Luke but
not in Mark. It is called 'Double Tradition' or sometimes 'Q material',
the latter term used without necessarily prejudicing the issue of the
origin of the material. We have encountered this once already, above,
when looking at the preaching of John the Baptist. The Synopsis here
has two columns and, let us remind ourselves, looks like this:

Matthew 3.7-10

Luke 3. 7-9

'Offspring of vipers! Who
warned you to flee from the
coming wrath? Bear fruit
therefore worthy of repentance
and do not presume to say in
yourselves. "We have Abraham
as father"; for I say to you that
God is able from these stones to
raise up children to Abraham.
Already the axe is laid at the root
of the trees; for every tree not
producing good fruit is cut down
and cast into the fire".

'Offspring of vipers! Who
warned you to flee from the
coming wrath? Bear fruit
therefore worthy of repentance
and do not begin to say in
yourselves. "We have Abraham
as father"; for I say to you that
God is able from these stones to
raise up children to Abraham.
Already the axe is laid at the root
of the trees; for ever>' tree not
producing good fruit is cut down
and cast into the fire".

Don't forget to photocopy or print out this passage and colour it.

The Synoptic Problem

You will see a striking difference in your colours from the colours
found in Triple Tradition passages above. Where there there was very
little green, here we have the opposite — almost entirely green. This is a
typical example of Double Tradition material. Like most of 'Q', it is
not narrative but sayings. The Double Tradition overall is made up of
somewhere between 200 and 250 verses of such sayings material,
usually, of course, Jesus' own speech. Often the material is as close in
agreement as the example here — there is nothing exceptional about
close agreement. Take, for example, this excerpt from the Sermon on
the Mount/Plain:

Matthew 7.3-5

Luke 6.41-43

And why do you see the speck that is in
your brother's eye, but the log which is in
your eye you do not consider? Or how
can you say to your brother,

'Allow me to take out the speck from
your eye', and behold
the log in your eye! Hypocrites! First take
the log out of your eye, and then you will
be able to see to take out the speck from
your brother's eye.

And why do you see the speck that is in
your brother's eye, but the log which is in
your own eye you do not consider? How
are you able to say to your brother,
'Brother,

allow me to take the speck that is in
your eye', when you yourself do not see
the log in your eye! Hypocrites! First take
the log out of your eye. and then you will
be able to see to take out the speck from
your brother's eye.

There are little variations between the accounts — Luke has a character-
istic 'Brother...' and Matthew a characteristic 'behold', but overall the
agreement is very close. Again, the colour most used here will be
green.

These are some of the most famous Double Tradition pericopae:

Table 2. Double Tradition

Matthew

Luke

Event

5-7

6.20-49

Sermon on the Mount/Plain

8.5-13

7.1-10

Centurion's Servant

11.2-19

7.18-35

Messengers from John the Baptist

11.20-24

10.12-15

Woes on the Cities of Galilee

11.25-27

10.21-22

Jesus' Thanksgiving to the Father

12.43-45

11.24-26

Return of the Evil Spirit

13.33

13.20-21

Parable of the Leaven

18.10-14

15.3-7

Parable of the Lost Sheep

2. Exploring The Maze

Matthew

Luke

Event

22.1-14

14.15-24

Parable of the Marriage Feast/Great Supper

25.14-30

19.11-27

Parable of the Talents/Pounds

23.1-36

11.37-54

Discourse Against Scribes (Law>'ers) and Pharisees

23.37-39

13.34-35

Lament Over Jerusalem

24.45-51

12.39-46

Parable of the Faithful and Wise Servant

Several features of interest are evident from a glance at this table.
First, one will see tliat, althiough Double Tradition material is largely
sayings material, there are apparent exceptions, the most obvious of
which are the Centurion's Servant (or, more accurately, the Centurion's
Boy — only Luke definitely identifies him as a servant) and the Mes-
sengers from John the Baptist. Nevertheless, although they have a
narrative setting, even these pericopae are mainly made up of sayings.

Another matter of interest here is the range of agreement between
Matthew and Luke. We saw above that often agreement is very close in
the Double Tradition, illustrated by the examples of the Preaching of
John the Baptist and the Log and the Speck. However, in the case of
the Parable of the Talents/Pounds, or the Parable of the Marriage Feast/
Great Supper, the agreement is much more slight — indeed, one even
has to give the parallel accounts different names in each Gospel.

Further, one quickly notices a major difference between this material
and the Triple Tradition. For, whereas in that material there is a sub-
stantial similarity in the order of pericopae between the three Synop-
tics, here there is major variation. While there are some similarities in
order — such as the placing of the Centurion's Servant just after the
Sermon on the Mount/Plain (with the Leper intervening in Mt. 8.1-4) —
there are big differences too. The Parable of the Faithful and Wise
Servant occurs roughly halfway through Luke's Gospel, in ch. 12, but
it occurs towards the end of Matthew's, in ch. 24. Likewise, there are
major differences over the positioning of the Lament over Jerusalem
(Mt. 23.37-39//Lk. 13.34-35), the Discourse against the Scribes and the
Pharisees (Mt. 23.1-36//Lk. 1 1.37-54) and the Parable of the Wedding
Feast/Great Supper (Mt. 22.1-14//Lk. 14.15-24). Much, too, of the
material found in Matthew's Sermon on the Mount is located differ-
ently in Luke — the passage on Care and Anxiety, for example ('Con-
sider the lilies...') is in the middle of Matthew's Sermon (ch. 6) but
much later on in Luke (12.22-34). Similarly, the Lord's Prayer, also in
Matthew 6, is found at the beginning of Luke 1 1.

42 The Synoptic Problem

The phenomenon of order is, as I have already hinted, one of the key
areas for the study of the Synoptic Problem. Whole books have been
devoted to this topic alone. ^ Much of the discussion revolves around
the matter of the Double Tradition and the fact that it seems to be
placed so differently in Matthew and Luke. The problem becomes par-
ticularly intense when one asks about the placement of the Double
Tradition in relation to the placement of the Triple Tradition in
Matthew and Luke. The relationship between the Triple Tradition and
the Double Tradition is something that the Two-Source Theory in
particular attempts to address directly — and we will look at this issue in
more detail in due course.

Summary

Double Tradition pericopae are those found in Matthew and

Luke alone. Here, the Synopsis will be in two columns.

There are about 200 verses of Double Tradition, most of

which is made up of sayings material, but some of which is

narrative.

The wording of this material is very similar in Matthew and

Luke. If one has coloured the Synopsis, there will be lots of

green in these passages.

Although there are some similarities, overall the order of this

material is different in Matthew and Luke.

5. Special Matthew

The third kind of synoptic material is even more obviously self-
explanatory than is Triple Tradition or Double Tradition. 'Special
Matthew', or 'M' material, is that which is unique to Matthew among
the Gospels. Although this material is an important aspect of the
Synoptic Problem, it is not, strictly speaking 'synoptic', for here there
are of course no columns, and the Synopsis will revert to printing the
text like that of a normal book. There is no need to colour these M
passages, but if you do you will simply have lots of the colour blue.

3. See the excellent study by David J. Neville, Arguments from Order in
Synoptic Source Criticism: A History and Critique (New Gospel Studies, 7; Macon,
GA: Mercer University Press, 1994).

2. Exploring The Maze

Like all other strands of material, Special Matthew features some
famous pericopae. This is a list of the most well-known:

Table 3. Special Matthew (M)

Matthew

Event

Mt. 1.1-17. though cfLk

3.23-38

Genealogy

Ml. 1-2. though cf. Lk. 1-

-2

Birth Narratives

Mt. 11.28-30

'Come to me all those who labour..."

Mt. 13.24-30. 36-43; but cf. Mk

Parable of the Tares and its

4.26-9

Interpretation

Mt. 13.44-46

Parables of Hidden Treasure and the
Pearl

Mt. 13.47-50

Parable of the Drag-net

Mt. 17.24-27

Coin in the Fish's Mouth

Mt. 18.23-35

Parable of the Unmerciful Servant

Mt. 20.1-16

Parable of the Labourers in the
Vineyard

Mt. 21.28-32

Parable of the Two Sons

Mt. 25.1-13; but cfLk. 1

2.35-36

Parable of the Ten Virgins

Mt. 25.31-46

Sheep and the Goats

Mt. 27.3-10

Death of Judas

Mt. 27.62-66

Guard at the Tomb

Mt. 28.9-10

Appearance to the Women

Mt. 28.11-15

Bribing of the Soldiers

Mt. 28.16-20

Great Commission

It should perhaps be added that soine of the Sermon on the Mount
(Mt. 5-7) constitutes M material, especially the first half of ch. 6. One
should also note that it is often difficult to distinguish between what
might be called M inaterial and what might be regarded simply as fuller
versions of Triple Tradition pericopae. In the baptism of Jesus by John,
for example, there are two verses of inaterial that appear only in
Matthew (3.14-15) and not in the parallel accounts in Mark (1.9-11)
and Luke (3.21-22). Here the Synopsis will look like this:

Matthew 3.13- r

Mark 1.9-11

Luke 3.21-22

Then

And it came to pass in

And it came to pass that

Jesus came

those days that Jesus came

while all the people were

from Galilee to the Jordan

from Nazareth in Galilee

being baptized, Jesus also

to John to be baptized by

him. But John prevented

The Synoptic Problem

him, saying, 'I need to be

baptized by you, and yet

you come to me?" And

Jesus answered him. 'Let

it be so now; for thus it is

fitting for us to fulfil all

righteousness". Then he

allowed him.

And when Jesus

And

had been baptized.

was baptized in the Jordan

having been baptized was

by John. And immediately.

praying, and

he arose immediately

having arisen

from the water; and

from the water, he saw the

behold, the heavens were

heavens

the heaven

opened to him...

torn apart. . .

was opened...

Two whole verses have no parallel in either Mark or Luke, so they
are, in this sense, Special Matthew — they are unique to his Gospel. On
the other hand, though, the verses only make sense in the narrative
context provided by Triple Tradition material, that is, the surrounding
verses that are paralleled in both Mark and Luke. Much of the special
material is like this — unique to Matthew yet couched in a Triple
Tradition narrative context — compare, for example, the following
passages:

Table 4. Special Matthew in Triple Tradition Contexts

Matthew

Event

14.28-31

Peter's attempt to walk on the water

16.17-19

Commendation of Peter

2L14-16

Healing and children's praise in the temple

27.19

Pilate's wife's dream

27.52-53

Graves opening at Jesus' death

This feature is another one that needs to be taken into account in
attempts to solve the Synoptic Problem. The kinds of questions that
inevitably arise are: has Matthew added these verses to an already
existing account in Mark (or Luke, or both), or have these verses been
omitted from the account by Mark (or Luke, or both)?

It is worth noting one or two characteristics of the special material.
Like Double Tradition, it is rich in sayings material, especially par-
ables. There is some narrative but it is usually said that it tends towards

2. Exploring The Maze

a more blatantly 'legendary' character than the bulk of narrative mate-
rial elsewhere in the Synoptics — the coin in the fish's mouth, for exam-
ple, or the characters rising from the dead at Jesus' death in Jerusalem.

Summary

Special Matthew pericopae are those found only in Matthew.
Some Special Matthew material is intimately connected with
the Triple Tradition contexts in which it is embedded.
Some Special Matthew material is said to have a 'legendary'
character.

6. Special Luke

There is, then, a good amount of material unique to Matthew. There is
a greater bulk of material, however, that is unique to Luke. This is
known as Special Luke or 'L' material. The reader will be familiar with
much of this material — it is a favourite with preachers and it is the
mainstay of many a school assembly. These are the most prominent of
its pericopae:

Table 5. Special Luke (L)

Luke

Event

l-2;butcf Mt. 1-2

Birth Narratives

2.41-52

Jesus as a boy in the Temple

3.23-38; but cfMt. 1.1-19

Genealogy of Jesus

7.11-17

Raising of the Widow of Nain's Son

8.1-3

Ministering Women

9.51-56

Samaritan Villages

10.17-20

Return of the Seventy-Two

10.29-37

Parable of the Good Samaritan

10.38-42

Martha and Mary

11.5-8

Parable of the Friend at Midnight

11.27-28

Blessednessof Jesus" Mother

12.13-21

Parable of the Rich Fool

13.1-5

Tower of Si loam

13.6-9

Parable of the Fig Tree

13.10-17

Healing of the Bent Woman

14.1-6

Healing of the Man with Dropsy

The Synoptic Problem

Luke

Event

14.7-14

Invitations to Feasts and Dinners

15.8-10

Parable of the Lost Coin

15.11-32

Parable of the Prodigal Son

16.19-31

Parable of Dives and Lazarus

17.7-10

Parable of the Servant of All Work

17.11-19

Healing of Ten Lepers

18.1-8

Parable of the Unjust Judge

18.9-14

Parable of the Pharisee and the Tax-Collector

19.1-10

Zacchaeus

22.35-38

Two Swords

23.6-12

Trial before Herod

24.13-35

Road to Emmaus

24.36-49

Appearance of Jesus in Jerusalem

L material shares one of the complications that was a feature of the
M material — sometimes, though less often than in Matthew, it appears
in a Triple Tradition narrative context, for example the discourse for
'the daughters of Jerusalem' when Jesus is on the way to the cross (Lk.
23.27-32), or the conversation with the two thieves when Jesus is on
the cross (Lk. 23.40-43).

L material has an extra complication shared hardly at all by M. It is
sometimes difficult to judge whether one should ascribe a piece to L or
whether one should call it a different version of Triple Tradition
material. The key examples of this are in the following table:

Table 6. L Material Similar to Matthew and Mark

Luke

Similarity

Event

4.16-30

Similar to Mt. 13.53-58//Mk6.1-6a

Rejection at Nazareth

5.1-11

Similar to Mt. 4. 1 8-22//Mk 1.16-
20; John 21.1-11

Call of the first disciples

7.36-50

Similar to Mt. 26.6-1 3//Mk 14.3-9;
John 12.1-8

Woman who anoints Jesus

In each case the incident is placed differently from its (partial) parallel
in Matthew and Mark and in each case the account is a much ftiller
one. Further, on two of the occasions (Call, Anointing), there are inter-
esting parallels too in the Gospel of John.

It may not have escaped the reader's notice that much of Luke's
special material is parable material, and that many of the most famous

2. Exploring The Maze 47

parables are here — the Good Samaritan, the Prodigal Son, Dives and
Lazarus, the Pharisee and the Publican, the Unjust Judge, the Friend at
Midnight, the Rich Fool. Furthermore, some of the non-parable mate-
rial is equally as rich in its colour as are the parables — it is here that
one finds some of the most three-dimensional, human touches in the
Gospels — the Ten Lepers, where one returns thankful; the Widow of
Nain, whose only son is brought to life; Martha and Mary, where Mary
is commended for listening at Jesus' feet; and the Road to Emmaus, in
which the two travellers recognize their travelling companion when he
breaks bread with them.

Summary

Special Luke pericopae are those found only in Luke.
Some Special Luke material is similar to pericopae in Mark.
Special Luke contains many of the best-known materials in
the Gospels (e.g. Road to Emmaus) and it is rich in parables
(e.g. Good Samaritan and the Prodigal Son).

7. Summary and Complications

It is important but straightforward to grasp the data set out thus far.
Having opened a Synopsis, readers should ask themselves what kind of
material is in front of them. Is it Triple Tradition? If so it will appear in
three columns, Matthew, Mark and Luke. Is it Double Tradition? If so
it will appear in two columns, Matthew and Luke. Is it Special
Matthew? If so it will appear only in Matthew. Is it Special Luke? If so
it will appear only in Luke.

These kinds of material make up the great bulk of the Synoptic
Gospels. Each pericope will, in some measure, fall into one of these
four categories. And one will notice, on each occasion, that the Triple
Tradition material seems to revolve largely around Mark, its 'middle
term'; Double Tradition seems to be largely sayings material, often
with near-verbatim agreement, and not so similar in its order as Triple
Tradition; Special Matthew contains some (so-called) legendary ele-
ments and Special Luke is full of great stories, especially parables.

This much is straightforward and it is this that the student should be
careful to grasp. When looking at those most simple kinds of material,
Special Matthew and Special Luke, however, we saw that difficulties

The Synoptic Problem

can arise in classifying material. Do certain verses, like Jesus' encoun-
ter with John the Baptist in Mt. 3.14-15, fit more obviously in the
category 'Special Matthew' or are they, rather, a special Matthaean ele-
ment embedded in the midst of Triple Tradition?

Further, do pericopae like Luke's Rejection at Nazareth (Lk. 4.16-
30), the Call of the First Disciples (Lk. 5.1-1 1) and the Woman Who
Anoints Jesus (Lk. 7.36-50) sit more easily in the L category or should
they really to be regarded as distinctive Lukan versions of material that
also occurs in Matthew and Mark?

Thus we notice that there is some blurring across the categories. It is
usually straightforward to classify a pericope into one type of material
or the other, but sometimes the categories are shown not to be water-
tight. In addition to the issues connected with M and L, the reader
should be aware of a further two matters relating to Triple Tradition
and Double Tradition.

a. Not Quite Triple Tradition

First, there is another kind of material that is not, strictly speaking.
Triple Tradition but which is, nevertheless, very closely related to it.
We saw above that a great deal of Mark is covered in the general cate-
gory of Triple Tradition. This means, in other words, that much of
Mark is paralleled in both Matthew and Luke. The fact that now needs
to be added to this is that some of Mark is paralleled in Matthew but
not in Luke and some (but less) of Mark is paralleled in Luke but not in
Matthew. Let us take an example of each. This pericope occurs in
Matthew and Mark but not in Luke:

Matthew 14.34-36

Mark 6.53-56

And when they had crossed over, they
came upon the land, to Gennesaret.
And when the men of that place
recognized him,
they sent to the whole of that
surrounding region, and they brought
to him all those who were ill,

and they

exhorted him that they might only
touch the fringe of his garment. And as
many as touched were made well.

And when they had crossed over, they
came upon the land of Gennesaret and they
moored. And when they got out of the
boat, immediately, having recognised him,
they ran about the whole of that
region, and began to bring those
who were ill, wherever they heard that he
was. And wherever he came into villages
or into cities or into the country, in the
market places they laid the sick and
exhorted him that even the fringe of his
garment they might touch; and as many as
touched it were made well.

2. Exploring The Maze

When coloured this passage has a good deal of purple, in all the
places where Matthew and Mark agree.
This pericope occurs in Mark and Luke but not Matthew:

Mark 12.41-44

Luke 21.1-4

And having sat down opposite the treasury,

And having looked up,

he watched how the crowd puts money into

he saw the rich putting their gifts into

the treasury; and many rich people were

the treasury.

putting in much. And one poor widow,

And he saw a certain penniless widow.

having approached, put in two copper coins.

putting there two copper coins.

which is a penny. And having called his

and

disciples to him. he said to them: 'Amen I

he said: "Truly I

say to you that this poor widow has put in

say to you that this poor widow put in

more than all who have put money into the

more than all of them;

treasury; for all put in

for these all put into the gifts of God

from their abundance, but she from

her lack

her lack has

put in all that she has. her whole life".

put in all the life that she has'.

When coloured this passage is largely orange — places where Mark and
Luke agree.

Material like this, though in two columns and not three, has its
closest affinity with Triple Tradition and not, as one might have
thought, with Double Tradition. This state of affairs is not as strange as
it sounds. Double Tradition, as we saw above, is the technical tenn
used to describe the body of material found in Matthew and Luke hut
not in Mark — so these kind of pericopae, occurring in Matthew and
Mark alone, or Mark and Luke alone, are nothing like it. It is much
more like Triple Tradition, for Mark is the common element. In colour-
ing terms, both have a 'red' component, Matthew//Mark (blue + red =
purple) and Mark//Luke (red + yellow = orange). These passages have
no green at all, the characteristic colour of the Double Tradition with
its extensive agreement between Matthew and Luke.

This is actually another aspect of Mark's status as the middle term
between Matthew and Luke. Nearly all of the material in his Gospel is
paralleled in Matthew or Luke or both. The tendency has therefore
emerged to think of passages like these (in Matthew and Mark alone, or
Mark and Luke alone) as close relatives of pure Triple Tradition pas-
sages, especially as the order in these passages remains Mark's order.

In Table 1 above (pp. 35-36), when looking for the first time at the

50 The Synoptic Problem

phenomenon of order, we saw a striking pattern across a sample stretch
of the Synoptics — an unbroken Markan column in the middle (except
for Matthew's M pericope, 17.24-27). This is a key aspect of what it
means to say that Mark is the middle term in the Synoptics. Most of the
passages in this sample section appear in all three Synoptics — these are
pure Triple Tradition — and, what is more, they appear in the same
order. Two of the passages (Coming of Elijah; On Offences) occur in
Matthew and Mark but not Luke. One (Strange Exorcist) occurs in
Mark and Luke but not Matthew, yet all three of these passages, the
kind we are considering at present, appear in the Markan sequence. The
common thread throughout is Mark.

The same pattern is repeated regularly in the Synoptics. Some schol-
ars have attempted to crystallize the phenomenon into a formula and to
say that wherever Matthew departs from Mark's order, Luke keeps to
it, and that wherever Luke departs from Mark's order, Matthew keeps
to it. There has, however, been a great deal of debate about the use of
such formulas. It is difficult to state them neutrally, that is, without
assuming one of the solutions to the Synoptic Problem, especially Mar-
kan Priority. Further, all too often they tend towards an unhelpful over-
simplification of the data. The student may find it more straightforward,
therefore, simply to continue to remember the rule that Mark tends to
be the middle term among the Synoptics.

Summary

Some material appears in Matthew and Mark but not Luke;
some material appears in Mark and Luke but not Matthew. In
colouring terms, these are the passages that feature either lots
of purple (Matthew//Mark) or lots of orange (Mark//Luke) and
no green at all.

This material has its closest affinity with the Triple Tradition,
because it always appears in Markan order in Matthew and the
Markan order in Luke. It is another element of Mark as the
middle term.

b. When Mark Is Not the Middle Term

Unfortunately, however, there are several very important exceptions to

the basic rule. On a handful of occasions, Mark is not so clearly the

2. Exploring The Maze

middle term. As always, the best introduction to the data is illustration.
The Parable of the Mustard Seed is a classic example of a passage
occurring in all three Synoptics in which Mark is not the middle term:

Matthew 13.31-32

Mark 4.30-32

Luke 13.18-19

He put another parable

And he was

Therefore he was

before them, saying:

saying.

saying:

^The

'How shall we liken the

'What is

kingdom of heaven is

kingdom of God, or in

the kingdom of God like,

what parable shall we put

and to what shall 1 liken

like a grain of

it? Like a grain of

it? It is like a grain of

mustard seed, which a

mustard .seed, which when

mustard seed, which a

person, having taken it.

sowed in his field: which.

it is sown upon the earth

put in his own garden and

thouRh it is the smallest of

is the smallest

all the seeds.

of all the seeds on the

when

earth and when it is sown.

it has grown is the

it grows and becomes the

it grew

greatest of the

greatest of all the

vegetables, and it

and it

becomes a tree.

produces great branches.

became a tree.

so that the birds of heaven

and the birds of heaven

come and nest

are able to nest

nested

in its branches".

under its shade'.

in its branches".

Those who have done their colouring will notice a different pattern
here from the pattern observed in the standard Triple Tradition pas-
sages discussed above. Where there there were only very little amounts
of green, representing the agreement between Matthew and Luke
against Mark, here the surprising difference is that there is a great deal
more green, representing some substantial agreement between Matthew
and Luke against Mark.

The surprise here is that Mark is not the middle term, or, in colouring
terms, that there is not a monopoly on brown, purple and orange, the
common colours for the passages in which Mark is middle term. There
is some clear agreement between all three Synoptics ('like a grain of
mustard seed'; 'the birds of heaven', brown), some agreement also
between Matthew and Mark alone ('the smallest of all the seeds... the
greatest of all the vegetables', purple) and some agreement between
Mark and Luke alone ('How shall we liken the kingdom of God, or in
what parable shall we put it?', orange), but what is striking is that there

The Synoptic Problem

is also important agreement between Matthew and Luke against Mark
('which a person, having taken it... becomes/became a tree...
branches', green).

Also interesting is the placement of this pericope. Normally, as we
saw above, this is the pattern:

MATTHEW

MARK

LUKE

MATTHEW

MARK

LUKE

Mark is usually the common element, which means that one tends
not to find agreements in order between Matthew and Luke against
Mark. Matters are different here, however, since both Matthew and
Luke pair this parable with that of the Leaven (Mt. 13.33//Lk. 13.20-
21 ), a parable that does not appear at all in Mark.

Passages like this, then, Triple Tradition passages in which Mark is
not the middle term, appear in all three Synoptics and they feature
substantial agreement, either (or sometimes, both) in order and
wording, between Matthew and Luke against Mark. Such passages are
not very common and isolating them is not always straightforward, not
least because the matter of agreement between Matthew and Luke
against Mark is simply a question of degree. Every Triple Tradition
passage features some agreement between Matthew and Luke against
Mark. What the interpreter has to decide is whether to call the agree-
ment major (as in the handful of passages currently under discussion)
or minor (as in the majority of Triple Tradition passages). These are the
passages in which scholars have taken the agreement to be major and
not minor, and which therefore constitute examples of Triple Tradition
passages in which Mark is not the middle term.

2. Exploring The Maze
Table 7. When Mark Is Not the Middle Term

Matthew

Mark

Luke

Event

3.11-12

1.7-8

3.15-17

John the Baptist

3.13-17

1.9-11

3.21-22

Jesus' Baptism

4.1-11

1.12-13

4.1-13

Temptations

12.22-37

3.22-30

11.14-23

Beelzebub Controversy

13.31-32

4.30-32

13.18-19

Parable of the Mustard Seed

10.1-15

6.6b-13

9.1-6; 10.1-12

Mission of the Disciples

Each of these pericopae features material common to all three
Synoptics in addition to some substantial agreement between Matthew
and Luke against Mark. In the case of the Temptations and the Mission
of the Disciples, the greater bulk of the material is common only to
Matthew and Luke.

These passages in which Mark is not the middle term constitute the
most difficult phenomenon in the Synoptic Problem. The complexity
lies in the fact that this category so blatantly blurs the basic distinction
between Triple Tradition and Double Tradition, thus more than any-
thing else preventing the easy classification of everything into the con-
venient, straightforward categories that would otherwise be possible.
Furthennore, scholars are not agreed about the number of these pas-
sages, and one's judgement is, as we shall see later, strongly influenced
by one's own solution to the Synoptic Problem.

Summary

There are some Triple Tradition passages in which Mark is
not the middle term.

In other words, there are some passages occurring in all three
Synoptics in which there are substantial agreements (not just
minor agreements) between Matthew and Luke against Mark
in wording and/or order. Such passages, when coloured, have
much more green than is usual in Triple Tradition passages.

8. Conclusion

Let us conclude this preliminary exploration by outlining the different
kinds of Synoptic material:

54 The Synoptic Problem

(a) Triple Tradition: pericopae found in all three Synoptics. The
Synopsis is in three columns. The order of this material is
similar across the three Synoptics.

(b) Double Tradition: pericopae found in Matthew and Luke but
not in Mark. The Synopsis has two columns. The order of this
material tends to be different in Matthew and Luke.

(d) Special Luke: pericopae found in Luke alone. "^

Most of the material in the first three Gospels is easily classified into
one of these four types. There are, however, some complications:

(e) Special Matthew in Triple Tradition contexts: some material
unique to Matthew is embedded in Triple Tradition material
and would make no sense outside of that context.

(f) Special Lukan versions of Triple Tradition: three pericopae
(Rejection at Nazareth; Call of the First Disciples; Anointing)
have partial parallels in Matthew and Mark and might be
described as special Lukan versions of Triple Tradition
material.

(g) Not quite Triple Tradition: some pericopae feature in Matthew
and Mark but not Luke and some (though fewer) in Mark and
Luke but not Matthew. These pericopae are not, strictly speak-
ing. Triple Tradition because they occur in only two Gospels,
but they are akin to Triple Tradition because they always
appear in the Markan order.

(h) When Mark is not the Middle Term: there is some material that
is halfway between Triple Tradition and Double Tradition. It
appears in all three Synoptics but, unlike pure Triple Tradition,
features substantial (rather than minor) agreement between
Matthew and Luke.

One of the threads that runs through this is, then, that Mark is often
(but not always) the middle term. This can be represented like this:

4. It should be added that there is no separate category 'Special Mark'. There is
only a handful of verses that occur in Mark alone — chiefly 7.33-36 (Healing of a
Deaf Mute); 8.22-26 (Blind Man of Bethsaida); and 14.51-52 (the young man
fleeing naked). See further on these pericopae below, pp. 59-61 .

2. Exploring The Maze

MATTHEW

MARK

LUKE

MATTHEW

MARK

LUKE

This phenomenon involves the following:

(a) In Triple Tradition passages, there are usually substantial
agreements in wording between Matthew, Mark and Luke,
between Matthew and Mark alone and between Mark and
Luke alone. There are only minor agreements between Matt-
hew and Luke against Mark.

(b) The order of Triple Tradition passages and 'not quite Triple
Tradition' passages is usually the same as Mark's order. Matt-
hew and Luke less often agree together in order against Mark.

Some stress, then, needs to be placed on Mark as the middle term if
one is to understand the interrelationship of the Gospels. It is a striking
phenomenon and it is this issue that provides the most useful starting
point in attempting to solve the Synoptic Problem. Now that it is time,
then, to turn from describing the data to accounting for it, let us look
first at the most common way to account for Mark as the middle term:
the theory that his was the first Gospel to be written and that it was
used by both Matthew and Luke, the theory known as the Priority of
Mark.

Chapter 3

markan priority

1 . Introduction

The estabUshed canonical order of the Gospels, as many a schoolchild
knows, is Matthew, Mark, Luke and John, an order that has been set in
stone for a very long time. By happy chance, this order is most
conducive to synoptic study, for, as we saw in our previous chapter,
Mark is usually the 'middle term' among the Synoptics. Thus, where
three columns need to be used, Mark appears in the middle and Matt-
hew and Luke on either side, a situation that often facilitates useful
comparison, helping one to see ways in which Mark manifests itself as
'the middle term' among the Synoptics.

Yet this convenient situation masks a more troubling state of affairs,
for not only has Matthew long been the first in order among the
Gospels, but also his Gospel has been regarded, for most of Christian
history, as the earliest Gospel (two matters that are themselves related).
This is in stark contrast to more recent history, in which the consensus
of scholarly opinion has pronounced strongly in favour of the Priority
of Mark. What is it about the internal evidence from the Synoptic
Gospels that convinces the majority of scholars that the traditional
opinion is wrong? In this chapter we will look carefully at the internal
evidence, the Synoptic Gospels themselves, in an attempt to judge the
plausibility of the case for Markan Priority. At the end of the chapter
we will return briefly to the external evidence.

The procedure will be as follows. Several arguments for Markan
Priority will be explained and illustrated and some attempt will be
made to point towards the strongest arguments. Before beginning, how-
ever, two matters should be noted. First, this chapter does not aim to be
exhaustive, but attempts rather to focus on the arguments that are either
common, current or in some way compelling. The student looking for a
way through the maze should find this approach congenial, for it avoids

3. Markan Priority 57

unnecessary paths that might tempt one away from the key issues.
Second, it is important that students know their guide. This book is not
a detective novel in which the mystery is solved only at the end of the
book, with clues left along the way for the sharp-eyed reader to find. I
will not, therefore, hide from the reader where I stand on this, the most
important issue in Synoptic studies — strongly on the side of Markan
Priority.

2. Additions and Omissions

When we are thinking about Markan Priority, there is one question that
we need to ask ourselves again and again and it is this: Does the
evidence make better sense on the assumption that Mark is writing first,
and that his Gospel was used by Matthew and Luke, or does it make
better sense on the assumption that he is writing third, and is dependent
on Matthew and Luke? These are the two dominant alternatives in
Gospel studies, Markan Priority or Markan Posteriority.

One question that naturally arises is whether Mark's Gospel makes
better sense on the assumption that its unique elements are matters that
Mark has added to Matthew and Luke (Markan Posteriority) or whether
its unique elements are matters that Matthew and Luke have each
omitted from Mark (Markan Priority). Equally, is the material that is
absent from Mark better explained as material that Mark has omitted
from Matthew and Luke (Markan Posteriority) or as material that Matt-
hew and Luke have added to Mark (Markan Priority)?

The matter is not an easy one to settle, particularly as one's answers
will inevitably be determined by one's perspective on other, prior
issues. It often used to be assumed, for example, that the evangelists
would have omitted very little of substance from their sources. If they
did not include a given pericope or a particular chunk of material, it is
because they did not know about it. Mark could not have known about
the Birth Narratives (Mt. 1-2; Lk. 1-2) or the Sermon on the Mount
(Mt. 5-7) or he would have included them. Indeed this was one of the
major presuppositions behind the acceptance of Markan Priority, one
that still sometimes makes its presence felt today.

However, in recent years scholars have been more confident about
appealing to the creativity of the evangelists, and those with sharp
minds can often think of all sorts of reasons that an evangelist may
have omitted this or added that. Perhaps, for example, Mark omitted
the Sermon on the Mount because it is not consonant with his fast-

58 The Synoptic Problem

moving, dramatic narrative, its focus on Jesus as a New Moses hardly
congenial to Mark's Jesus, who sits so much more lightly towards the
Law. Perhaps he omitted the Birth Narratives because he saw them as
similarly surplus to requirements.

Yet a closer, less superficial look at the question of supposed Markan
omissions and additions may be more revealing, and may indeed point
towards Markan Priority. It will be worth paying special attention, in
particular, to the key issue of the relationship between the supposed
additions and omissions, asking ourselves whether a coherent picture
of Mark the redactor emerges on the assumption that Mark wrote third,
using Matthew and Mark as his sources. There are several ways in
which Markan Priority explains this data better than does Markan
Posteriority. Let us take them in turn.

a. Apparent Omission of Congenial Material

If Mark wrote third, using both Matthew and Luke, one will want to
know why it is that he omitted so much material from his predecessors.
For while there is much material that is common to the three Synoptics
(Triple Tradition), there is also a substantial body of material that is in
Matthew and Luke alone (Double Tradition). Since the rationale for the
writing of Mark has sometimes been stated, by those who think that he
wrote third, as being the retaining of concurrent testimony in Matthew
and Luke, the question of the omission of Double Tradition material
becomes all the more striking. Or, to put it another way, why, on the
assumption that Mark wrote third, is there any Double Tradition at all?

Of course the natural answer to this question would be that the
Double Tradition pericopae must have been material that was in some
way uncongenial to Mark. Our question will therefore be to ask
whether the Double Tradition indeed has the character of material that
looks uncongenial to the author of Mark's Gospel. Is it defined, on the
whole, by 'un-Markan' elements?

It has to be said that the Double Tradition does not obviously have a
clearly un-Markan profile. Indeed, there are places in Mark where the
insertion of double-tradition might have been highly conducive to his
purposes, both literary and theological. Of the several examples that
could be given, the clearest is the apparent omission, if one thinks that
he knew Matthew and Luke, of the Lord's Prayer. For in Mk 1 1.20-25,
after the fig tree has been withered, there are some Jesus sayings about
prayer, including the following:

3. Markan Priority 59

'So I tell you, whatever you ask for in prayer, believe that you have
received it, and it will be yours. Whenever you stand praying, forgive, if
you have anything against anyone; so that your Father in heaven may
also forgive you your trespasses'.

This might have been an ideal location for Mark, to have inserted a
version of the Lord's Prayer. The general theme, even some of the
specific language is paralleled in Mt. 6.6-13//Lk. 11.2-4. What Mark
has done, on the assumption that he knows Matthew, is to take the
explanatory words ('if you forgive others...') from Mt. 6.14-15 without
taking over the prayer beforehand. In other words, this data does not
make good sense on the assumption of Markan Posteriority.

Summary

• Currently the two most popular ways to explain the fact
that Mark is usually 'the middle term' are Markan Priority
(Matthew's and Luke's use of Mark) or Markan Posteriority
(Mark's use of Matthew and Luke). One has to ask whether
the evidence makes best sense on the assumption of Markan
Priority or Markan Posteriority.

• Some of the material not in Mark makes better sense on the
assumption that it has been added by Matthew and/or Luke
than on the assumption that it has been omitted by Mark.

b. Apparent Addition of Elements Not Congenial to Matthew and Luke
There is little material that is present in Mark but absent in both
Matthew and Luke. This is in stark contrast to the substantial amount
of material unique to Matthew and the even greater amount of material
unique to Luke (see previous chapter). This state of affairs makes the
handful of verses that Mark shares with neither of the other Synoptics
all the more interesting. The main examples are the following:

Mk 7.33-36: Healing of a Deaf Mute
Mk 8.22-26: Blind Man of Bethsaida
Mk 14.51-52: Man Running Away Naked

The question that we inevitably find ourselves asking is whether it
seems more likely that these are passages that have been omitted by
Matthew and Luke (Markan Priority) or whether these are passages that
have been added by Mark to Matthew and Luke (Markan Posteriority).

60 The Synoptic Problem

It has to be said that Markan Priority seems more Hkely. The healing of
the Deaf Mute features some rather graphic details of Jesus' healing
techniques:

He took him aside in private, away from the crowd, and put his fingers
into his ears, and he spat and touched his tongue. Then looking up to
heaven he sighed and said to him 'Ephphatha", that is, 'Be opened" (Mk

7.33-34).

Similarly, the Blind Man of Bethsaida is a somewhat bizarre story:

And they came to Bethsaida. And some people brought to him a blind
man. and begged him to touch him. And he took the blind man by the
hand, and led him out of the village; and when he had spat on his eyes
and laid his hands upon him, he asked him, "Do you see anything?" And
he looked up and said, 'I see men; but they look like trees, walking'.
Then again he laid his hands upon his eyes; and he looked intently and
was restored, and saw everything clearly. And he sent him away to his
home, saying, 'Do not even enter the village' (Mk 8.22-26).

As in the healing of the Deaf Mute, Jesus' healing technique
involves the use of saliva. Mark's Jesus here contrasts somewhat with
both Matthew's and Luke's Jesus. Nowhere in Matthew or Luke do we
find healings of this type, using physical agents like saliva. It may well
be that they both had distaste for this kind of depiction of Jesus. But we
have other features too that are more straightforwardly explained on
Markan Priority than they are on Markan Posteriority. Notice the
element of secrecy involved in both healings. 'Do not even enter the
village', Jesus tells the healed blind man, just as he had told the healed
deaf-mute 'to tell no-one' (Mk 8.36). These elements of secrecy are
much more scarce in Matthew and Luke than they are in Mark.

Furthermore, this story might seem to place some kind of limit on
Jesus' ability — the healing is not instantaneous but takes time. This is
not the only time that Jesus' power appears to be limited in Mark's
Gospel. Similarly, in 6.5, after the incident at the synagogue in his
home country, we read 'And he could do no mighty work there, except
that he laid his hands upon a few sick people and healed them', a pas-
sage that reads differently in Mt. 13.58 where Jesus 'did not do many
deeds of power there, because of their unbelief. The Markan Jesus is a
more human Jesus, a more earthly and realistic Jesus, and it is reason-
able to imagine Matthew (and Luke) amending and omitting what was
before them. And Christian history has, on the whole, been much more
strongly influenced by their picture of Jesus than by Mark's.

3. Markan Priority 61

Could Mark have added this material to Matthew and Luke? Of
course he could. Perhaps he was eager to correct the more reverential
picture of Matthew and Luke, thus in a sense 'reprimitivizing' the
tradition. The question, however, is whether this view, on which Mark
adds only a small number of archaizing traditions at the expense of
much congenial material in Matthew and Luke, is more plausible than
the alternative possibility, that these incidents are ones omitted by
Matthew and Luke in accordance with their general redactional poli-
cies. Most would feel that Markan Priority makes better sense of the
data than does Markan Posteriority.

It might added that in this category, as in several of the others, we
consistently run into difficulties over the question of Mark's profile.
For if Mark's purpose is to include in his Gospel those stories to which
his predecessors bear concurrent testimony, then we find ourselves
asking what it is about these stories, the Blind Man of Bethsaida and
the Deaf Mute, that is so important that they beg to be added. If, on the
other hand, Mark is eager to add material that he considers of interest,
without concern over the united testimony of his predecessors, why
does so little else make it into the Gospel? Is it that Mark did not know
of any other useful stories?

Summary

The material unique to Mark makes better sense as material
omitted by Matthew and Luke than it does as material added
by Mark.

c. The Place of Oral Tradition

This problem is illustrated and so compounded fijrther by questions
over the place of oral tradition in Christian origins. On the assumption
that Matthew is writing first, there appears to be a wealth of material
available to him. Similarly for Luke, on the assumption that he has
used only Matthew, there appears to be a large amount of additional
tradition available. Then, however, when Mark writes, as we have seen,
there seems to be a striking lack of additional material available to the
author. All he adds is a small handful of stories, none of which is
particularly striking. And he adds virtually no fresh sayings material at
all. Those who believe that Mark came third therefore have to make

62 The Synoptic Problem

sense of a situation in which Mark stands out from much of early
Christianity. For after Mark, in the early second century, Papias reports
that he prefers what he calls 'the living voice' to the written word.'
And the recent discovery (in 1945) of the Gospel of Thomas,- which
features a good deal of material independent of the Synoptics and
apparently gleaned from oral tradition would seem to confirm further
that oral tradition did not die a death somewhere in the late first
century. Why does Mark apparently rely on this oral tradition so little?
Were the stories of the Blind Man of Bethsaida and the Deaf Mute the
best he could manage?

This troubling situation is intensified by a striking feature of Mark's
style. For of all the (canonical) Gospels, Mark's is the most blatantly
colloquial, the most 'oral' in nature. His Gospel often sounds like it is
directly dependent on oral traditions, with its lively pace {and immedi-
ately...), its present tenses {and Jesus says...), its love of visual detail
('the green grass', Mk 6.39; 'he was in the stem, asleep on the
cushion', 4.38) and its abrupt ending (16.8). It is perhaps for these
reasons, as well as for reasons of length, that Mark has been the Gospel
that has lent itself most readily in modem times to oral performance. In
other words, it would be odd if the most 'oral' of the Synoptic Gospels
tumed out also to be the third Gospel, dependent almost entirely (save
for a handfiil of verses) on two much more literary predecessors, both
of whom, like those who also came later, apparently had rich access to
oral traditions of Jesus' actions and sayings.

Summary

• If Mark has only added the material that is unique to him, then
his Gospel becomes an anomaly in early Christianity, with
relatively little contact with oral tradition in comparison with
Matthew, Luke, Thomas and others.

1. Papias is quoted by the fourth century Church historian Eusebius,
Ecclesiastical History 3.39. 1 -7, 14-17.

2. Greek fragments of the Gospel of Thomas probably dating to the early third
century were found at Oxyrhynchus, Egypt, in 1897. A complete copy of the same
Gospel in Coptic, dating from the fourth century, was found at Nag Hammadi,
Egypt, in 1945. The Gospel is a collection of Jesus' sayings and it originated some-
where between the late first and mid second century.

3. Markan Priority

d. The Relationship between Omissions and Additions
The question of Mark's alleged omissions and additions can be most
clearly focused by asking about the relationship between them. Does a
consistent or coherent picture of Mark the redactor emerge when we
consider his Gospel from the perspective of the Griesbach Theory, in
which Mark utilizes Matthew and Luke?

As we have seen, Mark, on this theory, apparently adds material that
would have been in any case uncongenial to Matthew and Luke (Blind
Man of Bethsaida, etc.), material that seems an odd selection from what,
one presumes, would have been available to him from his oral tradition.
These few additions are balanced by the omission of congenial material
like the Lord's Prayer, for which Mark has an obvious context into
which it might have been slotted. The picture that is emerging does not
seem to favour the posteriority of Mark. But this negative judgment is
compounded still further by noticing that on the Griesbach Theory,
Mark's tendencies pull very much in opposite directions.

If Mark is the third evangelist to write and not the first, then we need
to find a way of making sense of two features of his Gospel. First, he
has a tendency, on occasions, to add clarificatory material to his
sources in Matthew and Luke, as here for example:

Matthew 9.10

Mark 2. 1 5

Luke 5.29

And as he sat at table in

And Levi made him a

the house, behold.

his house.

great feast in his house;

many

and there was a large

tax collectors

company of tax collectors

and sinners came and sat

and sinners were sitting

and others sitting at table

down with Jesus and his

with Jesus and his

with them.

disciples.

disciples; /f)/- there were
many who followed him.

Mark often adds little explanatory clauses like this. At 11.13, for
example, the narrator says, 'When he came to it, he found nothing but
leaves, ybr it was not the season for figs'. At 16.4 we hear, 'And
looking up, they saw that the stone was rolled back, for it was very
large\ And right at the beginning of the Gospel Mark explains that
Jesus 'saw Simon and his brother Andrew casting a net into the sea for
they were fishermen'' (1.16).^

3. The \for...' clauses do not occur in Matthew's parallels to Mk 11.13 (in

The Synoptic Problem

The adding of these somewhat redundant clarificatory clauses would
appear to bear witness to an evangelist who is eager to spell out things
very carefully for the reader. This looks like someone who, on the
assumption of the Griesbach Theory, is editing Matthew and Luke to
draw out what often appears to be transparently obvious. It is striking,
therefore, that elsewhere Mark — again on the assumption of his use of
Matthew and Luke — appears to be doing precisely the opposite thing,
and making his sources more enigmatic, more darkly ironic, especially
in the Passion Narrative.

One thinks, for example, of the following passage, in which there is
a subtlety about Mark's account that is lacking in Matthew and Luke:

Matthew 26.67-68

Mark 14.65

Luke 22.64

Then they spat

And some began to spit

Now the men who were

into his

on him, and to cover his

holding Jesus mocked him

face, and struck him; and

face, and to strike him.

and beat him; they also

some slapped him, saying,

saying to him,

blindfolded him and asked

"Prophesy to us, you

'Prophesy!'

him, 'Prophesy!

Christ! Who is it that

Who is it that

struck you? '

And the guards
received him with blows.

struck you?

Mark's account here has a wonderful, dark dramatic irony, an irony
that we can only perceive when we view this passage in context.
People are spitting on Jesus, striking him and saying 'Prophesy!', little
realizing that they are in the act of fulfilling Jesus' own prophecy of
10.34, 'they will mock him, and spit upon him, and flog him, and kill
him'. Likewise, as this action is going on, Peter is in the act of fulfilling
the prophecy of 14.30 ('this day, this very night, before the cock crows
twice you will deny me three times').

In Matthew and Luke there is none of this irony, and the mocking
charge to 'Prophesy!' is explicated by means of a clarificatory question,
'Who is it who smote you?' (Mt. 26.68; Lk. 22.64), the 'prophesying'
relating now purely to the issue of second sight. This makes good sense
on the assumption of Markan Priority but less sense on the Griesbach
Theory, for which Mark avoids the concurrent testimony of Matthew
and Luke and subtly creates a more darkly ironic scene. The latter is of

Mt. 21.19) and Mk 16.4 (in Mt. 28.4), but it is present in Matthew's parallel to Mk
1.16 (in Mt. 4.18).

3 . Markan Priority 65

course possible, but it is at variance with the view of Marie that we pick
up elsewhere from his addition of somewhat banal clarificatory ele-
ments. There is an interesting, apparently inconsistent combination of
subtlety in omission and editing with the more banal and redundant
kind of clarificatory addition.

The difficulty, in short, for the Griesbach Theory in dealing with
Mark's alleged omissions and additions is that so many contrasting
features of Mark are placed into such very sharp relief. Mark is a fasci-
nating Gospel, in some ways mysterious, in other ways banal, often
prosaic, frequently profound. Is it more likely that this is a work of
brutish genius, the first attempt to write a 'gospel of Jesus Christ' (1.1)
by imposing a narrative on disparate traditional materials, or is this the
complex product of contradictory elements in a redactional procedure,
utilizing Matthew and Luke, that is rarely easy to fathom? Often, on the
theory that Mark wrote third, there seems to be a deliberate rejection of
the concurrent testimony of Matthew and Luke that on the Griesbach
Theory he is supposed to value, in order simply to add almost redun-
dant clarificatory clauses, something that appears to be contradicted by
his very careful and subtle work elsewhere. In this category, Markan
Priority is the preferable option.

Summary

If one assumes Markan Posteriority, the relationship between
the supposed omissions and additions does not make for a
coherent picture of Markan redaction. The addition of banal
clarificatory additions is not consonant with the generally enig-
matic, ironic tone of Mark's Gospel. It is more likely that
Mark was the first Gospel to be written, a work of brutish
genius, which was subsequently explicated by both Matthew
and Luke.

3. Harder Readings

If the evidence from supposed additions and omissions therefore tends
to point in the direction of Markan Priority, is this tendency supported
in other ways? When Mark parallels material in Matthew and/or Luke,
for example, who among the three has what one might call the 'harder'

The Synoptic Problem

reading? This will be a case, once more, of the individual reader's
judgment, and of asking whether Mark looks more like the document
from which Matthew and Luke worked, or more like a document based
on Matthew and Luke.

In this category, most scholars have concluded that Mark often has
the more difficult reading, the kind of text that was more difficult for
later Christians to accept, and so more likely to have been corrected by
others than to have been a correction of others. As always, it is easier to
see the point when it is illustrated. Let us look then at a handful of
examples of Triple Tradition (or 'not quite Triple Tradition' passages)
that make the point clearly.

Matthew 8.16-17

Mark 1.32-34

Luke 4.40-41

That evening

That evening.

Now when the sun was

at sundown.

setting.

they brought to him many

they brought to him all

all those who had any that

who were

who were sick or

were sick with various

possessed with demons;

possessed with demons.

diseases brought them to

And the whole city was

him;

and he cast out the spirits

gathered together about

with a word, and healed

the door. And he healed

and he laid his hands on

all who were sick. This

many who were sick with

every one of them and

was to fiilfil what was

various diseases, and cast

healed them. And demons

spoken by the prophet

out many demons;

also came out of many,

Isaiah, 'He took our

crying, 'You are the Son

infirmities and bore our

of God!' But he rebuked

diseases' .

them, and would not

and he would not permit

allow them to speak.

the demons to speak.

because they knew that he

because they knew him.

was the Christ.

There are several features of interest in this pericope (which also has
parallels in Mt. 12.15-16, Mk 3.10-12 and Lk. 6.17-19 and elsewhere),
one of which is the distinction between the number of people healed in
the different accounts. In both Matthew ('all') and Luke ('each one'),
everyone is healed, whereas in Mark it is 'many' who are healed. What
one has to ask under such circumstances is, once more, what is more
likely? Has Mark, writing third, changed the clear indication that Jesus
healed everybody who came to him to the more ambiguous line that
Jesus healed 'many'? Or are we to think that Matthew and Luke have
both clarified their source by making clear all were healed and that

3. Markan Priority

there was no one who missed out? Most will think that Markan Priority
provides the more likely scenario here.

The following example is in some ways similar. Although the gen-
eral pericope is paralleled in Luke (Mt. 13.54-58//Mk 6.1-6ay/Lk. 4.16-
30), his Gospel has no specific parallel to this verse. This example
therefore comes in two columns:

Matthew 13.58

Mark 6.5

And he did not do many mighty works
there,

because of their unbelief

And he could do no mighty work
there, except that he laid his hands upon a
few sick people and healed them. And he
marvelled because of their unbelief

As often, Matthew's differences from Mark here are slight but signi-
ficant. Whereas in Mark the clear impression is that Jesus is unable to
do mighty works there, in Matthew we hear rather that Jesus simply
'did not' do any mighty works. It is a small but striking point that is
usually held to point towards Markan Priority. It is straightforward to
imagine Matthew making the change here, but stranger to think of
Mark making the change in the opposite direction.

In a way this category is an extension of the previous category, for
the reader is being called upon to ask about direction of dependence. Is
it more plausible that Mark is creating his text on the basis of Matthew
and Luke? Or is it more plausible that Matthew and Luke are creating
their texts on the basis of Mark? Most think it more likely that Matthew
and Luke have omitted a handful of strange Markan pericopae than that
Mark added the odd pericopae to his united witness in Matthew and
Luke. So also here most think it more likely that Matthew and Luke
have rewritten the 'harder' Markan material than that the reverse hap-
pened. As in the previous category, therefore, this evidence is sugges-
tive rather than decisive, plausible if not provable.

Summary

• In several difficult passages, it is more straightforward to see
Mark as the source for Matthew and Luke than it is to see
Matthew and Luke as the sources for Mark.

The Synoptic Problem

4. 77?^ Dates of the Gospels

It is a notorious difficulty in Synoptic Studies to work out precisely
when the Gospels were written. It is clear that they were all in exis-
tence by the early to mid second century, when we begin to hear quota-
tions from them, but we would like to be able to pinpoint the date more
accurately. If it were clear, for example, that the best evidence placed
Mark's Gospel earlier than Matthew's or Luke's, we would have a
useful additional reason for thinking that his Gospel was the first to be
written.

Although the evidence is inconclusive, the few hints that we have are
that Mark's Gospel is earlier than Matthew's and Luke's. The most
decisive pointer is the question of whether or not the Gospels refer,
however obliquely, to the key events of 70 CE, when Jerusalem was
overrun by the Roman army after the Jewish War beginning in 66 CE.
Matthew and Luke both seem to provide hints that they know of the
events of 70. These are the clearest examples:

Matthew 23.37-39

Luke 13.34-35

'Jerusalem. Jerusalem, killing the

'Jerusalem, Jerusalem, killing the

prophets and stoning those who are sent

to you!

How often would I have gathered your

children together as a hen gathers her

brood under her wings, and you would

not!

Behold, your house is forsaken and

Behold, your house is forsaken.

desolate. For I tell you, you will not see

And I tell you, you will not see

me again, until you say, "Blessed is he

me until you say, "Blessed is he

who comes in the name of the Lord!" '

Here Matthew and Luke, in a Double Tradition passage (note the
close verbal agreement), seem to have Jesus prophetically announcing
dramatic events to take place in Jerusalem, and these are words that
would have much more poignancy in a post-70 situation. 'Your house',
Jerusalem's house, clearly refers to the Temple, which in the post-70
period indeed lay 'forsaken' and in ruins. That does not necessarily
mean that Matthew and Luke, or their tradition, were putting words
into Jesus' mouth, but it may mean that both evangelists have taken

3. Markan Priority

care to include material that will have a special poignancy for their
hearers.

But is there anything more specific than this? Well, the Parable of the
Great Banquet in Matthew's Gospel (which has a parallel also in Lk.
14.15-24 and Thomas 64) features an interesting verse that may allude
to the events of 70 CE:

Again he sent other servants, saying. 'Tell those who are invited,
'Behold, I have made ready my dinner, my oxen and my fat calves are
killed, and everything is ready; come to the marriage feast'.' But they
made light of it and went off, one to his farm, another to his business,
while the rest seized his servants, treated them shamefully, and killed
them. The king, was angry, and he sent his troops and destroyed those
murderers and burned their city. Then he said to his servants, 'The
wedding is ready, but those invited were not worthy' (Mt. 22.4-8).

The thing that is so striking here is the extent to which this element
intrudes into a story that can be told quite adequately without it (as in
Luke and Thomas). It may be that Matthew is thinking here of the fall
of Jerusalem.

Such elements appear to be lacking, on the other hand, in Mark.
Indeed, where Mark is in parallel to Matthew and Luke, it appears
likely that Matthew and Luke have redacted Mark in the light of the
events of 70:

Matthew 24.15; 21-22

Mark 13.14: 19-20

Luke 21.20-21: 23-24

'So when you see

'But when you see

the desolating sacrilege

Jerusalem surrounded by

spoken of by the prophet

armies.

Daniel, standing in the

set up where it ought not

then know that its

holy place (let the reader

to be (let the reader

desolation has come near.

understand), then let those

Then let those

who are in Judea flee to

the mountains...

For then

For in those days

For

there will be great

there will be such

great distress shall be

tribulation, such as has

tribulation as has

upon the earth and wrath

not been from the beginning

upon this people;

of the world

of the creation which God

until now. no, and

created until now. and

they will fall by the edge

never will be. And if those

never will be. And if the

of the sword, and be led

days had not been

Lord had not shortened

captive among all

shortened, no human

the days, no human

nations; and Jerusalem

The Synoptic Problem

being would be saved; but

will be trodden dowTi by

for the sake of the elect

for the sake of the elect.

the Gentiles, until the

those days will be

whom he chose, he

times of the Gentiles are

shortened."

shortened the days."

fulfilled."

It is clear that Luke in particular is more specific than Mark. Whereas
Mark's Jesus speaks obliquely about the 'desolating sacrilege set up
where it ought not to be', Luke's Jesus prophesies a Jerusalem sur-
rounded by armies and downtrodden by 'the Gentiles'. It would seem
that of all the evangelists, Mark is the least explicit about the events of
70. This is, of course, only a potential indicator of Markan Priority. It is
not decisive. The point is that, as usual, in so far as there is any indi-
cator present, it goes in the direction of Markan Priority over Matthew
and Luke.

Are there then any other internal indications of Mark's age that
might help us? One hint is the note, which does not appear in either
Matthew or Luke, that Simon of Cyrene, who carried Jesus' cross, was
'the father of Alexander and Rufus' (Mk 15.21):

Matthew 27.32

Mark 15.21

Luke 23.26

And after coming out. they

And they are compelling a

And as they led him away.

found a man from Cyrene,

certain passer-by, Simon of

seizing a certain Simon of

named Simon;

Cyrene coming from the

country, the father of

country.

Alexander and Rufus,

they compelled this man

in order that he might

they laid the cross on him

carr)' his cross.

carry his cross.

to carry behind Jesus.

This passing reference to 'Alexander and Rufus' is interesting in that
it is not standard practice to mention a given individual's children.
Usually characters are identified by the name of their father (James and
John as 'sons of Zebedee', for example). The only obvious reason for
mentioning a character's children is that the children are expected to be
known by the reader. Here, then, we have a hint that Mark's Gospel
does not perceive itself to be a long way, in time, from the events it is
relating, for the sons of one of the characters in the story are apparently
known to Mark's readers. There are no such indications in Matthew or
Luke. Of course this may not count for a great deal, but once more it is

3. Markan Priority 71

the case that, in so far as there are any indicators at all, they go in the
favour of Markan Priority.

•

Summary

In so far as there are any internal indications of the dates of
composition of the Gospels, they suggest that Matthew and
Luke are later than Mark.

5. Circumstantial Evidence

So far we have seen that a variety of indicators seem to point towards
Markan Priority. When looking at patterns of omission and addition, it
seems more likely that Matthew and Luke postdate Mark than that
Mark postdates Matthew and Luke. Mark also tends to include the
'harder' readings when we compare it with Matthew and Luke and,
further, where there is evidence of the dates of the Gospels, what we
have points in the direction of Markan Priority. However, there is a
troubling feature in all of this discussion. All of these features are
merely suggestive. Not one of them appears decisive.

The difficulty is this. Most scholars feel that because Markan Priority
explains so much of the data so well, it is without doubt the 'chief
suspect' in the case. Yet when it comes to looking for clear and deci-
sive indicators, all that scholars, on the whole, have been able to find is
circumstantial evidence. What we would like is something that does
not merely point the finger, but actually secures the conviction. We
need something decisive. We need fingerprints on the gun. Happily,
there is one fresh category left to consider, that of editorial fatigue in
Matthew and Luke. Previous scholars had seen hints of this but until
recently its potential for solving the Synoptic Problem had not been
realized.

6. Securing a Conviction: Editorial Fatigue

When one writer is copying the work of another, changes are some-
times made at the beginning of an account that are not sustained
throughout. The writer lapses into docile reproduction of the source.
Like continuity errors in film and television, editorial fatigue results in
unconscious mistakes, small errors of detail that naturally arise in the

The Synoptic Problem

course of constructing a narrative. This phenomenon of 'fatigue' is thus
a telltale sign of a writer's dependence on a source. The best way to
explain the phenomenon is to illustrate it. Let us therefore return to one
of our examples from Triple Tradition material, the story of the Leper:

Mat the^v 8.1-4

Mark 1.40-45

Luke 5.12-16

1 . When he came down

And it came to pass while

from the mountain, many

he was in one of the cities

crowds followed him:

2. and behold, a leper

40. And a leper

and behold, a man fiill of
leprosy; and having seen

came to him and

came to him,

Jesus,

beseeching him and

he fell before his face

knelt before him. saying.

bending his knee, saying,

saying.

"Lord, if you will, you can

to him, 'If you will, you

"Lord, if you will, you

make me clean'.

are able to cleanse me'.

3. And

41 . Moved with anger.

13. And

he stretched out his hand

he stretched out his hand,

and touched him, saying.

and touched him, and said

and touched him, saying.

'I will; be clean'.

to him, 'I will; be clean'.

i will; be clean'.

And immediately his

42. And immediately the

And immediately the

leprosy

leprosy left him, and he

leprosy left him.

was cleansed. 4. And

was made clean. 43. And

14. And

Jesus said to him,

he sternly charged him.
and sent him away at
once. 44. and said to him.

he charged him

'See that you say nothing

to tell no one;

to any one; but go, show

but 'go and show

yourself to the priest, and

offer the gift

offer for your cleansing

make an offering for your
cleansing.

that Moses commanded.

what Moses commanded.

as Moses commanded.

for a proof to the people'.

In Matthew's version of the story there are two elements that are
difficult to reconcile: many crowds at the beginning of the narrative
(8.1) and the charge 'See that you say nothing to any one' at the end of
it (8.4). A miracle that has been witnessed by many is apparently to be
kept secret. This is in contrast to Mark where there are no crowds. The
Markan leper meets Jesus privately and the command to silence is
coherent.

This odd state of affairs can be explained by the theory of Markan

3 . Markan Priority 73

Priority, for which this is therefore evidence. This is what seems to
have happened. Matthew has just featured three chapters of largely
non-Markan teaching material (Mt. 5-7, the Sermon on the Mount) and
here he is returning to Triple Tradition (Markan) material. He resets the
scene by making a characteristic Matthean change, introducing 'many
crowds' (Mt. 8.1; cf. 4.25; 13.2; 15.30; 19.2; never found in Mark). But
as he goes on telling the story, docile reproduction of his source, or
editorial fatigue, causes him to reproduce a feature not consonant with
his new introduction to it. This example is particularly striking in that
the 'secrecy theme' ('See that you say nothing to any one') is such a
vivid and major theme in Mark's Gospel (e.g. 1.34; 3.12; 5.43; 7.36;
8.30), but is much less common in Matthew. It seems likely that
Matthew has made characteristic changes to Mark at the beginning of
the pericope, changes that lead the account into inconsistency when
Matthew reproduces the characteristically Markan wording at the end
of the pericope.

And this is not an isolated example. One that seems similarly persua-
sive is the story of the Death of John the Baptist (Mk 6.14-29//Mt.
14.1-12). For Mark, Herod is always 'king', four times in the passage
(Mk 6.22, 25, 26, 27). Matthew apparently corrects this to 'tetrarch'
(Mt. 14.1). This is a good move: Herod Antipas was not a king but a
petty dependent prince and he is called 'tetrarch' by the Jewish histo-
rian Josephus {Ant. 17.188; 18. 102, 109, 122). This kind of precision
is typical of Matthew. Later, he will specify that Pilate (Mk 15.1, 4, 9,
12, 14, 15, 43, 44) is properly called 'the governor' (Mt. 27.2, 11, 14,
15, 21, 27, 28.14), and 'the high priest' (Mk 14.53) is 'Caiaphas the
high priest' (Mt. 26.57). Earlier, in his Birth Narrative, Matthew tells
us that Herod the Great is a 'king' (2.1, 3) and that Archelaus is not
(2.22). More is the shame, then, that Matthew lapses into calling Herod
'the king' halfway through the story of John the Baptist's death (Mt.
14.9), in agreement with Mark (6.26).

There is, further, a more serious inconsistency in the same verse. The
story in Mark is that Herodias wanted to kill John because she had a
grudge against him: 'But she could not because Herod feared John,
knowing that he was a righteous and holy man, and he protected him.
When he heard him, he was greatly perplexed; and yet he liked to listen
to him'. (Mk 6.19-20). In Matthew's version of the story, this element
has dropped out: now it is Herod and not Herodias who wants him
killed (Mt. 14.5). When Mark, then, speaks of Herod's 'grief at the

The Synoptic Problem

request for John's head, it is coherent and understandable: Herodias
demanded something that Herod did not want. But when Matthew in
parallel speaks of the king's grief (Ml. 14.9), it makes no sense at all.
Matthew had told us, after all, that 'Herod wanted to put him to death'
(14.5).

The obvious explanation for the inconsistencies of Matthew's
account is that he is working from a source. He has made changes in
the early stages that he fails to sustain throughout, thus betraying his
knowledge of Mark. This is particularly plausible when one notes that
Matthew's account is considerably shorter than Mark's: Matthew has
overlooked important details in the act of abbreviating.

But to be sure about Markan Priority, we will need examples of the
same thing from Luke's alleged use of Mark. We will not be disap-
pointed. First, the Parable of the Sower and its Interpretation (Mt. 13.1-
23//Mk 4.1-20//Lk. 8.4-15) present exactly the kind of scenario where,
on the theory of Markan Priority, one would expect to see some incon-
gruities. The evangelists would need to be careful to sustain any
changes made in their retelling of the parable into the interpretation
that follows.

On three occasions, Luke apparently omits features of Mark's Parable
that he goes on to mention in the Interpretation. First, Mark says that
the seed that fell on rocky soil sprang up quickly because it had no
depth of earth (Mk 4.5; cf Lk. 8.6). Luke omits to mention this, yet he
has the corresponding section in the Interpretation, 'those who when
they hear, with joy they receive the word' (Lk. 8.13; cf. Mk 4.16).

Second, in Lk. 8.6, the seed 'withered for lack of moisture'. This is a
different reason from the one in Mark where it withers 'because it had
no root' (Mk 4.6). In the Interpretation, however, Luke apparently
reverts to the Markan reason:

Mark 4. 17

Luke 8.13

'And they have no root in themselves but
last only for a little while'.

'And these have no root; they
believe for a while\

Third, the sun is the agent of the scorching in Mark (4.6). This is
then interpreted as 'trouble or persecution'. Luke does not have the sun
(8.6) but he does have 'temptation' that interprets it (Lk. 8.13).

In short, these three features of the Parable of the Sower show clearly
that Luke has an interpretation to a text that interprets features that are

3. Markan Priority

not in that text. He has made changes in the Parable, changes that he
has not been able to sustain in the Interpretation. This is a good exam-
ple of the phenomenon of fatigue, which only makes sense on the
theory of Markan Priority.

For a second example of Lukan fatigue, let us look at the Healing of
the Paralytic (Mt. 9.1-8//Mk 2.1-12//Lk. 5.17-26). Here, Luke's intro-
duction to the story of the Paralytic (Mk 2.1-12//Lk. 5.17-26) is quite
characteristic. 'And it came to pass on one of those days, and he was
teaching' (Lk. 5. 1 7) is the kind of general, vague introduction to a peri-
cope common in Luke who often gives the impression that a given
incident is one among that could have been related. But in rewriting
this introduction, Luke omits to mention entry into a house, unlike
Mark in 2.1, which has the subsequent comment, 'Many were gathered
together, so that there was no longer room for them, not even about the
door' (Mk 2.2). In agreement with Mark, however, Luke has plot
developments that require Jesus to be in a crowded house of exactly the
kind Mark mentions:

Mark 2.4

Luke 5.19

'And when they could not get near him

'Finding no way to bring him in.

because of the crowd, they removed the

because of the crowd, they went up on the

roof above him; and when they had

roof and

made an opening, they let down the

let him down with his bed through the

pallet on which the paralytic lay'.

tiles into the midst before Jesus'.

Continuity errors like this are natural when a writer is dependent on
the work of another. Luke omits to mention Mark's house and his
inadvertence results in men ascending the roof of a house that Jesus has
not entered.

It might be added, as further evidence from the same pericope, that
Luke has the scribes and the Pharisees debating not, as in Mark, 'in
their heaits' (Mk 2.6) but, apparently, aloud (Lk. 5.21). This is in spite
of the fact that Jesus goes on to question them, in both Luke and Mark,
why they have been debating 'in' their 'hearts' (Mk 2.8//Lk. 5.22). The
latter phrase seems simply to have come in, by fatigue, from Mark.

This evidence of editorial fatigue provides, then, some strong evi-
dence for Markan Priority. Matthew and Luke apparently rewrite in
characteristic ways the beginning of pericopae taken over from Mark,
only to lapse into the wording of the original as they proceed, creating
minor inconsistencies and betraying the identity of their source. It is

76 The Synoptic Problem

just the kind of evidence one might wish for — a clear, decisive indi-
cator of Markan Priority that will not make good sense on the assump-
tion that Mark wrote third. It seems that we have the fingerprints on the
gun.

Summary

The most decisive indicator of Markan Priority is evidence of
editorial fatigue in Matthew and Luke. It seems that as Matt-
hew and Luke rewrote passages from Mark, they made charac-
teristic changes in the early part of pericopae, lapsing into
Mark's wording later in the same pericopae, so producing an
inconsistency or an incoherence that betrayed their knowledge
of Mark.

7. The Patristic Evidence

However, as I mentioned at the beginning of this chapter, there is some-
thing rather troubling about the case for Markan Priority, a niggling
difficulty that contradicts the scholarly consensus: the external evi-
dence. All the early Christian writers who expressed an opinion, from
the late second century onwards, pronounced in favour of the priority
of Matthew. Perhaps most importantly, Irenaeus, the bishop of Lyons,
who was writing towards the end of the second century, clearly dates
Matthew before Mark. In the earliest surviving statement concerning
the order in which the Gospels were composed, he says that 'Matthew'
was written among Hebrews and in their language 'while Peter and
Paul were preaching and founding the church in Rome', whereas Mark
wrote 'after their departure' (or 'decease', Greek: exodos).^ Likewise,
Clement, Origen, Augustine and Jerome, writing in the third to the fifth
centuries, all witness to Matthaean Priority. There is a genuine consen-
sus here, a consensus far stronger than the current scholarly one con-
cerning the Priority of Mark. Given this unanimity, and given the rela-
tively early nature of this evidence, would it not be foolish to ignore it?
Adherents of the Griesbach Theory have stressed this unanimity in
the Patristic evidence and it is undoubtedly one of the strongest ele-
ments in favour of their theory. It is not enough, however, to overturn

4. Against Heresies 3. U .7; quoted in Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History 5.8.

3. Markan Priority 77

the weight of the internal evidence, for several reasons. First, we need
to notice that in this kind of context, the internal evidence has to be
key. Of course we should not ignore the external evidence, but in criti-
cal scholarship we should not be afraid of cross-examining it or of
looking to see whether it is corroborated by the internal evidence. The
point is best made by means of an analogy. If present-day students do
what the evangelists did in the first century, copying large stretches of
the work of others without acknowledging their sources, we call it
plagiarism, and it is regarded as a serious offence in higher education
because one wants to be sure that it is indeed a student's work and not
somebody else's when one is assessing it. Now if one student were to
accuse another of plagiarism, we would listen to the charge but we
would not institute disciplinary proceedings unless we were quite sure
of the plagiarism on the internal evidence generated by the student's
piece of work itself In other words, we would take the (external) evi-
dence of the accusation seriously, but we would not think of penalizing
the student concerned unless we were able to find clear evidence of
plagiarism in the piece of work itself It is the same with the Synoptic
Gospels. We listen to the external evidence, but if it does not square
with the overwhelming internal evidence, we have no choice but to
place a question mark against it.

Leaving the situation like this, though, is not adequate. There are still
unanswered questions. The good historian needs to ask how the sources
came to say what they say. Why do these sources pronounce in favour
of the priority of Matthew? Did they know what had happened? It is
usually assumed that these fathers did not have a special knowledge of
the order of the composition of the Gospels. Originally, someone made
some inferences from the knowledge they did have, and these infer-
ences soon became the basis for a steady, repeated tradition, itself con-
firmed by the Fathers making similar inferences from the same material.

The major concern in this early period was not so much the one that
concerns us when we are looking at the Synoptic Problem, the question
of when the Gospels were written and how they were related to one
another. Their major concern was the question of who wrote the Gos-
pels, without any pressing interest in how they related to one another.
Given a plethora of other gospels, the fathers wanted to establish
grounds for maintaining the authority of these four, and the key issue
became the one of apostolic authorship or connection. The fathers
wanted to demonstrate that the four Gospels they favoured were written

78 The Synoptic Problem

by the apostles, or, at the very least, under the influence of the apostles.
The relative dates given to the Gospels then arose largely as a conse-
quence of prior decisions on the identity of the authors. From the
second century onwards, Matthew was not only the most popular
Gospel but it was also the one that bore the name of an apostle. Mark
and Luke, on the other hand, did not bear the names of apostles and
were thought to have been written by the companions of Peter and Paul
respectively. The Priority of Matthew was a natural consequence of the
belief that his Gospel was the one directly written by an apostle.
Likewise, the idea that Mark and Luke both postdated Matthew was the
natural consequence of the belief that their Gospels were in a way
secondary, written not by but under the influence of the apostles.''

Scholars now doubt quite strongly that the Gospels were written by
or even under the direct influence of the apostles. It is likely that the
Gospels were originally anonymous and that the ascriptions 'According
to Matthew', 'According to Mark', 'According to Luke' and 'According
to John' were only added later, and perhaps based only on inferences
derived from the New Testament texts themselves.^ Only Matthew tells
the story of the Call of Matthew (9.9-10; the same character is called
'Levi' in Mark and Luke) and the ascription to that apostle may have
been inferred from this. Similarly, Mark's link to Peter may have been
the result of an inference based on 1 Pet. 5.13, in which Peter refers to
'my son Mark'; and Luke is linked to Paul because of the 'we' pas-
sages in the second half of Acts combined with references to a Luke in
Colossians and Philemon.

But however the fathers came to decide on these names (and there is
no tradition of any variation), there is an interesting distinction
between Matthew on the one hand and Mark and Luke on the other.
The one Gospel bears the name of an apostle where the other two do
not. Could it be that priority was accorded to the Gospel that was
apostolic? If so, we might expect to see some disagreement over the
relative priority of Mark and Luke. And this indeed is what we do see.
For while Irenaeus (above) does not pronounce on the relative order of

5. Although John's Gospel, which also bears the name of an apostle, was
usually thought of as the last of the four, there was also a strong tradition that the
apostle John lived to an old age, and that the Fourth Gospel was relatively late.

6. Note, however, Martin Hengel's spirited defence of the notion that the
ascriptions kata Matthaion (according to Matthew) etc. are early and reliable
{Studies in the Gospel of Mark [ET; London: SCM Press, 1985], pp. 64-84).

3. Markan Priority 79

Mark and Luke, later writers did do so. Origen, writing in the middle of
the third century, seems to place Mark before Luke:

The first written [gospel] was that according to Matthew, who was once a
toll-collector but later an apostle of Jesus Christ. He published it for
those who became believers from Judaism, since it was composed in the
Hebrew language. The second was that according to Mark, who wrote it
according to Peter's instructions. Peter also acknowledged him as his son
in his general letter, saying in these words: 'She who is in Babylon,
chosen with you. sends you greetings; and so does my son Mark" [1 Pet.
5.13]. And the third was that according to Luke, who wrote for those
who were from the Gentiles, the gospel that was praised by Paul. And
after them all, that according to John.

Augustine, writing at around 400 CE, places the Gospels in this same
order, and is explicit that this is regarded as the order of composition:

So these four evangelists, well-known throughout the entire world (and
perhaps they are four because of this, since there are four parts of the
world, through the whole of which, they have proclaimed, in a certain
manner by the very sacrament of their own number, that the church of
Christ has spread) are regarded to have written in this order: first
Matthew, then Mark, third Luke, and last John. Hence, there is one order
to them in learning and preaching, and another in writing {De Consensu
Evangelistarum 1.3).

Clement of Alexandria, on the other hand, wrote as following:

And, again in the same books [Hypotyoseis 6], Clement has inserted a
tradition from the primitive elders with regard to the order of the Gospels
as follows: he said that those Gospels were written first which included
the genealogies, and that the Gospel according to Mark came into being
in this manner...*^

The Gospels 'which included the genealogies' are Matthew and Luke
(Mt. 1.1-17; Lk. 3.23-38). Thus we have competing traditions, one that
places Mark second (Origen, Augustine) and one that places Mark third
(Clement). This state of affairs is interesting. It is an annoyance to
adherents of the Griesbach Theory, who are keen to stress that the
evidence from Clement provides support for their theory, but who have
to acknowledge that there is this contradictory witness in Origen. But

7. Origen. quoted by Eusebius. Ecclesiastical History 6.25. "The gospel that
was praised by Paul" is a reference to 2 Cor. 8.18. It was thought that Paul was here
referring to Luke's Gospel.

8. F,usebius, Ecclesiastical History 6. 1 4.5-7.

80 77?^ Synoptic Problem

further, it tends to confirm the notion that, for the earliest writers, Matt-
haean Priority was a reflex of the (for them) related fact that Matthew
was directly apostolic, whereas Mark and Luke were only indirectly
apostolic. Priority is accorded to the Gospel penned by the tax-collec-
tor. Either of the Gospels composed by companions of the apostles,
Mark or Luke, may have been third. In other words, we have to treat
the patristic evidence with great caution — their agendas and assump-
tions in attempting to calculate priority are very different from ours.

Before we leave the question of the patristic evidence, we should
note one final key piece of evidence. While it is indeed true that there is
unanimity about Matthaean Priority among those who commit them-
selves on the order of the Synoptics, it also needs to be noticed that our
earliest testimony on synoptic traditions, from Papias, the bishop of
Hierapolis (early to mid second century) does not, as far as we can tell,
give any support to Matthaean Priority. In the quotations given to us by
the fourth-century church historian Eusebius, Papias is quoting his own
source, 'the Elder', who apparently mentions both that Mark is an inter-
preter of Peter and that Matthew compiled 'the logia' (reports, oracles)
in Hebrew, but in the extant passages there is no statement of relative
priority.^

The patristic evidence, therefore, is not marked enough to encourage
us to disregard the overwhelming internal evidence for Markan Priority.
Just as we would have to test the student's accusation of plagiarism by
looking carefully at the internal evidence presented by the essay in
which the alleged plagiarism had taken place, so too it is important for
critical scholars to pay carefiil attention to the internal evidence of the
Gospels. And just as we would want to know why the student had
made the accusation, we are keen to know the origins of the external
evidence about the Gospels. Here it seems that the fathers were more
concerned with the 'who' than they were with the 'when' of Gospel
composition; and when they did pronounce on the 'when', there are
some disagreements over the all-important relative order of Mark and

9. On Papias, see n. 1 above. I have left to one side here the traditions about
John's Gospel, also regarded by the fathers as directly apostolic. It seems that here
there was an unassailable tradition from early on that it was written relatively late,
the kind of tradition apparently lacking for the Synoptics. But again one can see the
importance for the fathers of direct, apostolic authorship in that some canonical
orders placed John second rather than fourth, and this in spite of the traditions that it
was written after Matthew, Mark and Luke.

3. Markan Priority 81

Luke, key to the Griesbachian scholars, who, on the whole, are so keen
to value patristic testimony. Thus where our earliest witness is (as far
as we can tell) noncommittal and where our later evidence shows such
a clear desire to give priority to the Gospel it thought written by an
apostle, and all this in contradiction with the weight of the internal evi-
dence, it will be most prudent to continue to treat the Patristic witness
with a pinch of salt.

Summary

• The patristic evidence provides support for Matthaean Priority
and it needs to be taken seriously. However, the Fathers were
more concerned with the question of the authorship of the
Gospels than they were with relative dates. Matthew was
thought to have been written by the apostle. When it came to
the Gospels bearing the non-apostolic names Mark and Luke,
the patristic consensus breaks down and there is disagreement
over which Gospel came third. Furthermore, our earliest
evidence, Papias, does not tell us either way. Critical scholars
will inevitably prefer the overwhelming internal evidence.

8. Conclusion

We will take the best route through the maze if we decide firmly in
favour of Markan Priority. This is for the following reasons:

(a) Mark as the middle term: It was the conclusion of our last
chapter, which made a survey of the data, that the key Synop-
tic fact is that Mark is the middle term. Both in matters of
order and wording, Matthew and Luke often agree with Mark.
It is less usual for Matthew and Luke to agree with each other
against Mark. The two common ways for this to be explained
have been Markan Priority (the majority) or Markan Posteri-
ority (a minority). In other words, Mark may be first, and used
by both Matthew and Luke; or Mark may be third, so using
Matthew and Luke. There are several indications that Markan
Priority is the preferable means of explaining the data, includ-
ing the following.

82 The Synoptic Problem

(b) Omissions and additions:

• Some of the material not in Mark makes better sense on
the assumption that it has been added by Matthew and/or
Luke than on the assumption that it has been omitted by
Mark.

• The material unique to Mark makes better sense as mate-
rial omitted by Matthew and Luke than it does as material
added by Mark.

• If Mark has only added the material that is unique to him,
then his Gospel becomes an anomaly in early Christianity,
with relatively little contact with oral tradition in compari-
son with Matthew, Luke, Thomas and others.

• The relationship between the omissions and additions does
not make for a coherent picture of Markan redaction: the
addition of banal clarificatory additions is not consonant
with the generally enigmatic tone of the Gospel.

(c) Harder readings: It is more straightforward to see Mark as the
source for Matthew and Luke than to see it redacting them in
its difficult passages.

(d) Dates: In so far as there are any internal indications of date in
the Synoptics, they suggest that Matthew and Luke are later
than Mark.

(e) Editorial fatigue: The most decisive indicator of Markan Pri-
ority is evidence that Matthew and Luke made characteristic
changes in the early part of pericopae where they were rewrit-
ng Mark, lapsing into the wording of their source later in the
same pericopae, so producing an inconsistency or an incoher-
ence that betrayed their knowledge of Mark.

One apparently major witness to the opposing theory of Matthean
Priority needs to be taken seriously, the patristic evidence, but we
cannot help noticing that their judgment was influenced by what was to
them a key element, the idea that Matthew was composed by the apostle
of that name. When it came to the Gospels bearing the non-apostolic
names Mark and Luke, the patristic consensus breaks down and there is
disagreement over which Gospel came third. Furthermore, our earliest
evidence, Papias, does not tell us either way.

Though a decisive and important step, the all-important postulation
of Markan Priority will not, however, take us all the way through the
maze. In particular, we need to ask the next logical question: Did

3. Markan Priority 83

Matthew and Luke use Mark independently of one another or did one
of them also know the other? And if Matthew and Luke used Mark
independently, how do we explain the origin of the non-Markan
material that they share, namely the Double Tradition? We will need to
think, in other words, about what kind of literary relationship will best
explain all the agreements between Matthew and Luke. This question is
a vital one for Synoptic studies and we will consider it in detail in
Chapters 5 and 6. But let us not hurry away from the topic of Markan
Priority too quickly, for its interest does not consist only in the extent
to which it solves one element of the Synoptic Problem. The theory has
huge relevance for New Testament study. Next, then, we will explore
the ramifications of Markan Priority, in historical, theological, text-
critical and redaction-critical terms. It is time to have a look at the role
Markan Priority plays in New Testament scholarship.

Chapter 4
BUILDING ON MARKAN PRIORITY

1 . Introduction

Having touched on the fascination of engaging in Synoptic study
(Chapter 1), and having surveyed the data (Chapter 2) and found a
compelling explanation for some of it in the theory of Markan Priority
(Chapter 3), it is time to consider the relevance of Markan Priority for
the study of the New Testament more broadly. For this is a theory that
has been honoured by time, and one of the reasons that it is held in
such high esteem in the academy is its explanatory power. Markan
Priority helps to make sense of so much of what we see in early Chris-
tianity, the Gospels and Jesus. It has been an indispensable prerequisite
of much that has taken place in New Testament scholarship and we
should not let this pass by without comment. There are several ways in
which the theory has helped scholars to reflect profitably on the biblical
text. We will deal with them under the following headings: redaction-
criticism, the study of the historical Jesus and Christian origins and
textual criticism.

2. Redaction-Criticism

The theory of Markan Priority has been at the heart of redaction-
criticism, one of the most important methods for studying the Gospels
developed in the previous half-century. Broadly speaking, redaction-
criticism might be defined as the study of the tendencies, nature and
distinctive emphases of a text with a view to ascertaining the theologi-
cal and literary standpoint of its author. On the whole redaction-criti-
cism eschews interest in the oral origin of units of tradition (pericopae)
that make up the Gospels (more the preserve oi form-criticism) in order
to concentrate attention on the process by which the evangelists created
their books. The focus is clearly on the authors of each Gospel. For

4. Building on Markan Priority 85

convenience, the authors are usually called Matthew, Mark and Luke,
but without our necessarily thinking that the original authors of these
books bore these names.

Redaction-criticism both assumes and builds on the theory of
Markan Priority in several ways. First, in assuming Markan Priority,
some of the key works of redaction-criticism have looked at Mark
without making reference to Matthew and Luke. In other words, it is
assumed that Mark was working without knowledge of any other
gospel, but was the first to draw together traditional materials about
Jesus into a coherent, written whole — his is the first gospel not only in
that it was the source of Matthew and Luke but also in the sense that he
was the originator of the genre, the first to write this kind of life of
Jesus that culminated in an account of his Passion and resurrection.

The task for the redaction-critic of Mark is therefore to find a
coherent and plausible explanation of how Mark redacted the materials
at his disposal, asking how the distinctive features of his text might be
explained by the theological viewpoint of its original author. The quest
has generated some fascinating proposals — redaction-criticism of Mark
has become something of a rich industry within biblical scholarship.
Perhaps Mark, for example, is the first person to forge together into a
coherent whole the Pauline kerygma (preaching) of the crucified Christ
with the traditions that were circulating concerning Jesus' life and
ministry, beginning his Gospel with accounts of Jesus' teaching ability
and healing power and, as the story progresses, taking the reader on a
journey, 'the way of the Lord', towards a kingdom constituted by the
cross of a crucified Messiah.

The obvious difficulty that redaction-criticism of Mark introduces is
the question of Mark's source material. On the assumption of Markan
Priority, we do not have any of Mark's sources extant and one of the
dangers in redaction-criticism of Mark is the potential circularity of
reconstructing Mark's sources on the basis of a reconstruction of what
one thinks Mark might have done with them. On the Griesbach Theory,
one does not have the same difficulty, for Mark is redacting his Gospel
on the basis of Matthew and Luke, omitting, reworking and entwining
sources that we have in front of us. But this, unfortunately, is one of the
genuine problems that scholars continue to confront in coming to terms
with the Griesbach Theory, the lack of a convincing redaction-critical
explanation for the choices that Mark makes, a lack that competes with
so many plausible and intriguing studies of Mark that work on the

86 The Synoptic Problem

assumption that he was responsible for the origin of the Gospel genre
as we know it.

But the anxiety about our inability to compare Mark with extant
sources has produced different results that both build on and react
against redaction-criticism of Mark. While the newer, emerging disci-
pline of narrative-criticism pronounces itself firmly uninterested in the
matter of sources, focusing purely on the individual text at hand, narra-
tive-criticism of Mark nevertheless aligns itself with redaction-criticism
of Mark in avoiding comparison with the other Synoptics. It is prob-
ably no coincidence that Mark has particularly lent itself to narrative-
critical analysis given the legacy of redaction-criticism that bases itself
on the priority of Mark, likewise not having to be concerned about
comparison between Mark the other Synoptics.

What then of redaction-criticism of Matthew and Luke? It too has
been developed on the assumption of Markan Priority, but in different
ways from redaction-criticism of Mark. For here we have one of the
sources of Matthew and Luke on the table in front of us ready for
analysis. It is one of the most clear and straightforward ways in which
study of the Synoptic Problem interacts with Gospel studies more
generally. Many of the insights that have been gleaned from the study
of Matthew and Luke are the product of comparison between Matthew
and Mark and between Luke and Mark. Where one can watch what a
writer is doing with a source, one can gain a much clearer profile of
that writer. It is true on both the level of the overarching designs of
Matthew and Luke and on the detailed level of their individual sen-
tences— the redaction-critic analyses Matthew and Luke in the light of
the assumption that they were using Mark, an assumption that tends
towards the notion that Matthew and Luke were both attempts to 'fix'
Mark, to supplement, rewrite and correct (what they saw as) its inade-
quacies while at the same time drawing on it.

As we have seen already, Matthew and Luke both incorporate the
basic structure of Mark, John the Baptist — Temptation — teaching and
healing ministry in Galilee — Passion in Jerusalem, but both appear to
find this structure in need of major supplementation. Thus both Matt-
hew and Luke rework Mark by adding Birth Narratives at the begin-
ning of their respective Gospels, and resurrection appearances at the
end. Perhaps then, like many a modem reader, they found Mark to be
lacking — rather shorter than one might expect — beginning too late and
ending too early and in the middle missing many of the matters that

4. Building on Markan Priority

might be regarded as essential, the Lord's Prayer for example, or the
Beatitudes. Indeed Matthew and Luke both feature a great deal more
sayings material than does Mark — proportionally more space is taken
up in both Matthew and Luke with teaching material than it is in Mark,
something that itself substantially alters the picture of Jesus we receive
from Mark.

On the assumption of Markan Priority, then, the first readers of Mark
found it to be inadequate. And this is true not only of questions of
structure and content — the questions concerning what Mark did not
include — but also on the more detailed level of its individual pericopae
and sentences within them. Its language is somewhat colloquial. Some
might even call it sloppy. There are broken sentences, the obsessively
frequent use of 'and' or 'and immediately' and the regular use of the
historic present, 'he says', 'he goes', 'he enters'. For both of the later
evangelists, this style wanted some substantial modification. Both make
major changes and Luke in particular recasts Mark in a much more
'literary' Greek style, omitting all of Mark's historic presents and
eliminating many of the regular 'and's.

The key matter, though, is to see that Matthew and Luke differed
from Mark in theology and Christology. Their conceptions of what
God, Jesus and the disciples were like overlapped with Mark's
conception but were not identical to it. Thus, for example, we might
remember that Matthew apparently altered Mark's comment that 'Jesus
could do no mighty work' in Nazareth (6.6) to a statement that 'Jesus
did not do there many mighty works' (Mt. 13.58). Likewise, we might
recall that the gradual healing of the blind man, no doubt seen to be
implying some limit on Jesus' power (Mk 8.22-26) is omitted in
Matthew and Luke. Nor, again, is Jesus so enigmatic in Matthew and
Luke. The elements of secrecy recede into the background and the edge
is taken off that darkly ironic Markan portrait (see above, pp. 64-65).
Where there are questions in Mark, there is explication in both
Matthew and Luke. Consider, for example, the following passage:

Matthew 17.9-13

Mark 9.9-1 3

9. And as they were coming down the
mountain. Jesus commanded them. "Tell
no one the vision, until the Son
of man is raised from the dead".

9. And as they were coming down the
mountain, he charged them to tell
no one what they had seen, until the Son
of man should have risen from the dead.

The Synoptic Problem

1 0. So they kept the matter to

themselves, questioning what the rising

from the dead meant.

10. And the disciples asked him. "Then

1 1 . And they asked him,

why do the scribes say that first Elijah

'Why do the scribes say that first Elijah

must come?" 1 1 . He replied.

must come?' 12. And he said to them,

'Elijah does come, and he is to restore all

"Elijah does come first to restore all

things;

things; and how is it written of the Son of

man. that he should suffer many things

and be treated with contempt?

12. but 1 tell you that

13. But I tell you that

Elijah has already come, and they did not

Elijah has come, and they did to him

know him. but did to him whatever they

whatever they

pleased. So also the Son of man will

pleased, as it is written of him'.

suffer at their hands'.

13. Then the disciples understood that he

was speaking to them of John the Baptist.

This example falls into the 'not quite Triple Tradition' category (see
above, pp. 48-50, occasions where material is common to Matthew and
Mark alone or to Mark and Luke alone). Typically, Mark's text is
allusive: it implies a knowledge both of the Hebrew Bible and of itself,
leaving the reader to do a good deal of the work. Here, we are expected
to have read the earlier part of the Gospel carefully, noticing that John
the Baptist's appearance resembled that of Elijah (Mk 1.6; cf. 2 Kgs
1.8) and that the story of John the Baptist, Herod and Herodias is
fashioned after and alludes to the stories of Elijah, Ahab and Jezebel
(Mk 6.14-29; 1 Kgs 17-22). Now careful readers of Mark who know
their Hebrew Bible will at this stage in Mark make a link, encouraged
by the saying of Jesus here recorded. They will see that Elijah has
indeed come, in John the Baptist, and that this confirms the messianic
identity of Jesus that the disciples are now beginning to perceive
(8.30). Further — and this is the key element — the sharp reader is
expected to see that Jesus will meet an end that is similar to that of
John — 'they did to him whatever they pleased, as it is written of him'
and so too the Son of Man will 'suffer many things', also as 'it is
written'. The reader of this passage in Mark, who reads in the context
of both the Gospel and the Hebrew Bible, is left reflecting on the
relationship between John the Baptist, the scriptures, Jesus' identity,
suffering, messiahship and the disciples' perception.

4. Building on Markan Priority

Now Matthew, whose account differs little from Mark's, nevertheless
adds a concluding comment not paralleled in Mark: 'Then the disciples
understood...' This is typical of Matthew. He knows his Scriptures and
he has been reading Mark and getting to know the book for some time.
He sees what Mark is doing here but is concerned that his readers
might miss it. So the allusive Mark, which prefers to keep things as
subtle as possible, gets reworked when it is absorbed into Matthew,
where matters are stated strongly and unambiguously. The same thing
happens again when Matthew is redacting the Markan incident con-
cerning bread on the boat (Mk 8.13-21//Mt. 16.4-12). The Markan
account is bizarre and somewhat difficult to fathom, ending on an open
question, addressed no doubt to the reader as well as to the disciples in
the Gospel: 'Do you not yet understand... ?' Equally as typically, Matt-
hew by contrast adds one of his clarificatory sentences, 'Then they
understood that he did not tell them to beware of the leaven of bread,
but of the teaching of the Pharisees and Sadducees' (16.12). Where
Mark has questions, and disciples who cannot fathom the answers,
Matthew has clear statements, and disciples who understand.

Thus Matthew, Mark's first reader, perceives what Mark is doing,
but decides to make it absolutely clear for his readers. Indeed one of
the reasons for the current scholarly fascination with Mark is, no doubt,
that this is a text that leaves the interpreter with plenty of work to do.

Let us have a look at another example of the way in which redaction-
criticism of Matthew and Luke can work within a single pericope.
Earlier we noticed some interesting differences in the story of the still-
ing of the storm. Now let us explore the differences in a little more
detail.

Matthew H.25-26

Mark 4.38-39

Luke 8.24-25

And the disciples, having

And

And having

approached him.

they

approached him they

awoke him saying.

awake him and say to him.

awoke him saying,

'Lord, save!

'Teacher, do you not care

'Master Master,

We are perishing!' *

that we are perishing?"

we are perishing!'

Then, having got up, he

And having awoken, he

rebuked the winds and

rebuked the wind and said

rebuked the wind and

the sea.

to the sea, 'Be silent! Be

the raging of the water.

muzzled!' And the wind

And they

and there was

ceased, and there was

a great calm*.

a great calm.

a calm.

90 The Synoptic Problem

*And he says to them.

And he said to them.

"Why are you afraid.

'Why are you so afraid? Have

"Where is

yeofUttlefaith?"

you still no faith?'

your faith?"

Where Mark's Jesus is harsh towards the disciples ('Have you still
no faith?') and the disciples have no respect for Jesus ('Do you not
care...?'), both Matthew and Luke have a little more reverence. In
Matthew they have characteristically 'little faith' (cf Mt. 14.31; 16.8),
not none, and in Luke the question is 'Where is your faith?' as if this is
but a temporary lapse. And the insulting question 'Do you not care...?'
is omitted by both. This is the kind of pattern that one finds throughout.

The redaction-critic will also notice places where the style of Matt-
hew and Luke characteristically differs from that of Mark. Luke, ever
the master of writing a lively story, adds the doubled vocative 'Master
Master' just as, elsewhere, Jesus says 'Martha Martha' (Lk. 10.41),
'Simon Simon' (Lk. 22.31) and 'Saul Saul' (Acts 9.4). Matthew, often
regarded as the most liturgical of the Gospels, has the disciples sound-
ing like they are in church chanting a confession, 'Lord, save!' just as
elsewhere those who 'approach' Jesus say 'Lord, have mercy!' (17.15).

Redaction-criticism is not very difficult once one gets used to prac-
tising it. Indeed this kind of redaction-criticism is a lot of fiin and gives
students with even the most basic knowledge of the Gospels a feeling
of empowerment as they practise a form of exegesis directly involving
the biblical text. It is one of the best ways of becoming familiar with
the Synoptic Gospels generally and the Synoptic Problem specifically.
For those who have not practised it themselves before, here is how to
go about it:

(a) Get hold of a Synopsis of the Gospels and start looking at
parallel passages.

(b) Choose a passage, preferably from the 'Triple Tradition'
(occurring in all three Synoptics), and begin to find the
similarities and differences between Matthew, Mark and Luke.
One of the best ways of doing this is by photocopying the
relevant page in your Synopsis and then doing some colour-
ing— see the suggested scheme above in Chapter 2.

(c) Focus on the differences between the Gospels and attempt to
find places where Matthew or Luke do the same thing else-
where in their Gospels. This is easier to do these days because

4. Building on Markan Priority 91

of the advent of useful electronic Bible search tools,' but the
more familiar you become with the Gospels, the more you will
be able to think of the parallels without having to look them
up. In the example above, for instance, it would be straight-
forward to look for other occurrences of the term 'little faith'
in Matthew,
(d) Find an explanation for the kinds of change you have isolated.
In the example above, you might notice that the disciples in
Matthew appear to be those of 'little faith' and that this con-
trasts to their total lack of faith in Mark.

As one becomes more and more familiar with the Gospels, one finds
redaction-criticism based on the assumption of Markan Priority easier
and easier to do. It is a popular discipline and on the whole it has been
extraordinarily successful, so much so in fact that it is now sometimes
said that it functions itself as an argument for Markan Priority, the
logic being that redaction-criticism has been so fruitful that it estab-
lishes the usefulness and plausibility of the starting point, the assump-
tion of Markan Priority. This is a difficult proposition to test, though,
because so many works have been written assuming Markan Priority
that it generates a kind of momentum of its own, and there is no coun-
terbalance. Nevertheless, it also needs to be said that so far Griesbach-
ian scholars are not generally regarded as having made a strong enough
case for the reinvention of redaction-criticism on the assumption that
Mark used Matthew and Luke. Perhaps in time the demonstration will
be forthcoming — but they have got a lot of stubborn academic minds to
change and victory does not look imminent. For the time being at least,
this kind of redaction-criticism based on Markan Priority will continue
to be practised extensively and profitably by Gospel exegetes.

Summary

• Redaction-Criticism: The process by which scholars analyse
the tendencies, nature and distinctive emphases of the Synoptic
Gospels with a view to ascertaining the literary and theological

1. I have gathered together several such tools, all available for free on the
Internet on a site called AU-in-One Biblical Resources Search (created November
1 999). http://wvv^.ntgateway.coni/multibib.htni.

92 The Synoptic Problem

standpoint of their authors. In study of Mark, Matthew and
Luke, the theory of Markan Priority has been key.
Mark's Gospel: Because of the theory of Markan Priority,
most scholars have assumed that Mark was the first writer to
forge together the traditional materials about Jesus into a
narrative framework with a specific agenda. The Gospel genre
was bom here. For many, the birth of the genre was the result
of Mark's attempt to couch the Jesus tradition in the frame-
work of a Passion that is anticipated from the beginning,
subordinating the materials about Jesus' life to a narrative of
suffering and death.

Matthew and Luke: Markan Priority helps us to notice the
extent to which Matthew and Luke are attempts to 'fix' Mark,
to fill it out by adding birth and infancy tales at the beginning,
fiiller resurrection stories at the end and lots of fresh teaching
material in between. Direct comparison between Mark and
Matthew and between Mark and Luke quickly reveals each
evangelist's distinctive emphases, encouraging us to extrapo-
late to an hypothesis about the evangelists' literary and
theological agendas.

3 . Historical Jesus and Christian Origins

Markan Priority has also been the cornerstone of a great deal of work
on the historical Jesus and Christian origins. After all, it is in the job
description of a sound historian to sift sources, looking in particular for
the earliest material and the most primitive traditions. If Mark is first,
and if the Triple Tradition material is directly derived by Matthew and
Luke from Mark, then it follows that the historian will want to spend
more time — for the triple tradition material at least — with Mark than
with Matthew and Luke. And this, on the whole, is the course that
study of the historical Jesus and Christian origins has taken. When
looking at Triple Tradition pericopae, Mark is accorded an exalted
position.

The special place that Markan Priority has in historical Jesus work is
largely justified. It is natural, for example, for scholars to spend more
time looking at Mark's account of the Passion of Jesus (Mk 14-16)
than at, say, Matthew's largely derivative version (Mt. 26-28). Or there
is a natural tendency in research into Jesus' parables to prefer the

4. Building on Markan Priority 93

Markan versions of Triple Tradition parables to the Matthean and
Lukan versions derived from them. Or on Christology, we might note
the differences between the Synoptics and extrapolate to an hypothesis
about the development of views about Jesus. We looked at a good
example of this in our first chapter above, the story of the Rich Young
Ruler in which Matthew's account differs at just the point where there
is potential ambiguity about Jesus' divinity (Mt. 19.16-17//Mk 10.17-
18//Lk. 18.18-19, pp. 25-26 above), something which, on the assump-
tion of Markan Priority, is due to Matthew's deliberate removal of
ambiguity and embarrassment.

Nevertheless, it does need to be added that the privilege accorded to
Mark in the study of the historical Jesus and Christian origins can
easily become excessive. Since here we touch on a point that is seldom
mentioned, and since it will also be important later when we investigate
the Double Tradition, it is worth pausing for a moment to consider this
carefully. The basic concern is this: while it seems clear that Markan
Priority is a fine working principle for historical enquiry, the obsession
with positing it above all else has sometimes resulted in a kind of
mechanical adherence that negates the possibility that Matthew and
Luke, in their rewriting of Mark, might also have been interacting with
oral traditions independent of Mark. We should ever be wary of the
assumption that 'earliest' is necessarily best, that the text closest in
time to the events being related is always and inevitably the most
reliable. We only need to think of our own distance from leading
events in the twentieth century to see the point. We might well write a
better biography of Elvis Presley or John Lennon today than anyone
was able to write in 1981, even though we might be directly dependent
on that biography of 1981 for some of our material. It is not just that
more research uncovers more sources. It is also a question of perspec-
tive and context — sometimes the years intervening between events and
accounts of them can generate a more critical, a more nuanced perspec-
tive. The analogy is not perfect, of course, but it does help us to remem-
ber not to allow an undue obsession with Matthew's and Luke's literary
dependence on Mark to affect our historical Jesus scholarship.

The point can be illustrated with a general example and a specific
one. First, the general example. It is worth noting that Matthew's Jesus
is a much more blatantly Jewish Jesus than is Mark's. Now in this, it
seems likely that Matthew is effectively closer to the historical Jesus
than is Mark. For it is a consensus of good historical Jesus scholarship

94 The Synoptic Problem

of the last generation or so that we need to take seriously Jesus'
Judaism and Jewish context. If this is right, then one of the things that
Matthew is doing in his Gospel is not just to 'Judaize' Jesus but to 're-
Judaize' the Jesus of Mark's Gospel. Perhaps it was one of the things
that led Matthew to write this Gospel, with its desire to draw from the
treasure-chest both 'the new' and 'the old' (Mt. 13.52). The evangelist
found much in Mark's Gospel that was of great worth to him, but he
was concerned about its general Gentile bias in which Jesus sits lightly
to the Law.

Second, a specific example. In order to understand this, we need to
remember that, from the earliest days of the Christian movement, oral
traditions of Jesus' sayings and deeds were circulating. The first Chris-
tians no doubt told one another, as well as new converts, about the
Jesus story and Jesus' sayings. The apostle Paul witnesses to this — he
reminds the readers of his letters of several of Jesus' sayings (for exam-
ple 1 Cor. 7.12 on divorce; 9.14 on mission; and 11.23-26 on the
Eucharist). Now it is hardly likely that oral traditions of the Jesus story
died out as soon as the evangelists committed them to papyrus. Indeed
the later evidence shows us that oral traditions of the Jesus story con-
tinued for a considerable time after the Canonical Gospels first became
known. Thus when Matthew and Luke were writing their Gospels, it
seems highly likely that they will have interacted with oral traditions of
some of the same material that they found in their primary literary
source, Mark. This will mean that on occasion, Matthew and Luke will
inevitably bear witness to different, sometimes more original versions
of Jesus material than the versions found in Mark, their literary source.

Since the point is seldom seen and might not be immediately grasped
by people immersed in purely literary ways of thinking, I will attempt
to illustrate it from our own culture. Most of us will be familiar with
popular children's stories like Snow White and Aladdin, which continue
to be told and retold in multiple different versions with local variations,
expansions and colour. Many of us will also know the Disney versions
of these stories. Now when Disney produced their version of Snow
White in 1937, other retellings of the Snow White story did not immedi-
ately die a death. Many later versions of Snow White were strongly
influenced by the Disney version, but the latter did not obliterate other
ways of telling the same story. So too, after Aladdin appeared in 1992,
other versions of the Aladdin story continued to be told, even though
many versions now tended to depict the genie along the same lines as

4. Building on Markan Priority

in the Disney film. In other words, a new, apparently definitive version
of a story even in our own culture strongly influences but does not
obliterate other versions of the same story in subsequent retellings.

It is likely that Matthew's and Luke's treatment of Mark worked
along similar lines. Since they were already familiar with other ver-
sions of some of the stories that they subsequently encountered in liter-
ary form in Mark, they redacted Mark in interaction with these oral
traditions. But how can we be sure that this is the case? Is there any-
thing more than just general likelihood? What we need is a good
example that will illustrate the point. We are lucky that we have an
example of a pericope that we will suspect to have been particularly
prone to influence from oral tradition, the words at the institution of the
Eucharist. This is a useful pericope in this context because we will
expect passages that fomied part of early Christian liturgy to have been
well known, repeated in differing versions across a wide geographical
stretch. Thus this is the kind of passage where we will expect to see
Luke showing signs of knowledge of a different or more primitive than
the one appearing in Mark. Have a look again at the Synopsis:

Matthew 26.27-28

Mark 14.23-24

Luke 22.20

/ Corinthians
11.25

And after he had

And likewise (he

taken the cup and

took) the cup after

given thanks, he

supper.

supper,

gave it to them

gave it to them and

saying, 'Drink

they all drank from

from it, all.

it. And he said to

saying,

saying.

For

them,

this is my blood

'This is my blood

This cup is the

'This cup is the

of the covenant

new covenant in

my blood.

my blood. Do this.

which is shed for

as often as you

many for the

many'.

you'.

drink, in my

forgiveness of

memory".

sins".

What is so interesting about this passage is that Paul's version is
very early — the words of institution occur in 1 Corinthians, normally
dated to the early fifties, well within a generation of the original event
that is being related. Now Luke, in spite of the fact that we know him
to have been literarily dependent on Mark, is nevertheless apparently

96 The Synoptic Problem

influenced by something resembling the very early tradition also known
to Paul. Luke, in other words, seems to be rewriting Mark in interaction
with a version of the same story known to him from his oral tradition.^
It is possible that Matthew too is reworking Mark in line with a version
of the Eucharistic words more familiar to him. While the words unique
to Matthew, 'for the forgiveness of sins', may simply be the evangel-
ist's own creative addition, it is equally possible that these are words
Matthew has added from his own oral tradition.

In short, observations like this do not compromise the theory of the
literary Priority of Mark, but they do have importance for studying the
history of traditions. It appears to be quite plausible that both Matt-
hew's and Luke's knowledge of oral tradition interacted with and
affected their reading of Mark's Gospel, something that is always
worth bearing in mind when we engage in the study of Christian
origins.

This important qualification having been made, the general point
nevertheless remains absolutely vital, that studies of the historical Jesus
and of early Christian origins will continue to build on the theory of
Markan Priority. Perhaps most important of all, and so a good way to
conclude this section, is the way that Markan Priority helps us to
understand the very origin of the Gospel genre. For if Mark is indeed
the first Gospel, then we inevitably find ourselves reflecting on how
this Gospel was generated. If Matthew and Luke are primarily attempts
to 'fix' Mark, to use it as a backbone but to correct it and fill it out, the
question of the origin of Mark's Gospel presses itself on us forcefully.
Is there anything in the book's structure, theology, outlook, appear-
ance, that helps us to understand what caused the first evangelist to
produce what we are now used to calling a 'Gospel'? The question
might sound odd to us because we are so used to the idea of lives of
Jesus of the kind Mark was the first to write. But it seems to have been
by no means self-evident in the first Christian generation that a Gospel
book of this kind was necessary or desirable — at least 30 years, and
probably more, separate Mark's Gospel from the events it is relating.

The fascinating thing about Mark's Gospel is that it does yield up
answers to our questions about the origin of the Gospel genre. There
are three interesting features of Mark's Gospel that give us clues:

2. Michael Goulder. however, argues that Luke is dependent here on 1 Corin-
thians and not on the oral tradition also known to Paul {Luke: A New Paradigm,
ch. 4).

4. Building on Markan Priority 97

(a) there is a marked element of secrecy, enigma and mystery con-
nected with Jesus' identity and activity; (b) in spite of this, icey ele-
ments in the narrative strongly affirm that Jesus is Messiah and Son of
God; and (c) Jesus' messiahship appears to be understood in line with a
major stress on his suffering and death. A popular and plausible schol-
arly explanation of these striking features is as follows. Mark's Gospel
was generated by the desire to marry the traditional materials the evan-
gelist knew with his own strongly held belief that Jesus was the Mes-
siah, and, furthermore, that the key to and culmination of his Messiah-
ship was suffering and death. Mark's means of stamping this belief on
the disparate materials at his disposal, materials that were not always
conducive to Mark's interests, was first, a 'mystery' motif and second,
a related stress on Jesus' suffering and death.

The mystery motif is a narrative device, a means by which Mark is
able to affirm Jesus' messianic identity by placing confessions in the
mouths of the narrator (1.1), God (1.11) and demons (1.24; 1.34; 3.11-
12), while at the same time most of the characters in the drama —
particularly the disciples, on whom Mark places special stress — remain
blissfully ignorant of who Jesus is. What Mark seems to have done is to
marry his traditions — stories and sayings that were often non-messianic
or uninterested in the notion of Jesus' messiahship — with his strongly
held belief that Jesus was indeed Messiah. And this marriage is
perfonned by means of the narrative device of irony and enigma. The
readers can see what the characters in the drama cannot see. We are
allowed to hear God's perspective, the demons' perspective, and the
narrator's perspective, but they cannot.

But this is not the whole story — the messiahship of Jesus is nuanced
and qualified by Mark in the direction of suffering and death. The first
half of the Gospel, in which Jesus' messiahship is established, is sub-
ordinated to the second half of the Gospel in which his destiny — suffer-
ing and death — is predicted (three times, Mk 8.31; 9.31; 10.31-32),
anticipated (Mk 10.35-45; 12.1-12) and then enacted (Mk 14-16). The
pivot is the mid-point in the Gospel, the moment when Simon Peter
correctly confesses that Jesus is Messiah (Mk 8.29), but fails to accept
the key point, that Jesus will suffer, leading to the famous rebuke, 'Get
thee behind me Satan!' (Mk 8.31-33). In the end, the disciples never
manage to make the vital connection between suffering and Messiah-
ship, but others do. First an unnamed woman 'anoints' Jesus for his
'burial' (Mk 14.1-9; bear in mind that 'Messiah' means 'Anointed')

98 The Synoptic Problem

and then, after the Twelve have variously denied, betrayed and fled
from Jesus, a group of women replace them as the true disciples at the
cross, having 'followed' him and 'ministered' to him from the begin-
ning (Mk 15.40-41).

Mark is all about a Messiah who suffers. It is the relentless theme of
his Gospel, increasing in intensity as the narrative reaches its goal. It
seems clear that the writer of this Gospel had an ulterior motive. Many
see him as in the legacy of the apostle Paul, for whom the crucified
Messiah was the heart of 'the gospel' message (e.g. Gal. 6.14). Accord-
ingly, given the mystery motif connected with Jesus' messiahship,
especially in the first half of the Gospel, and given Mark's stress on
Jesus as a messiah who was crucified in the second half, it seems likely
that the Gospel genre originated in Mark's attempt to take Paul's mes-
sage and marry it to the traditions about Jesus' life and death that he
knew. Or, to use somewhat old-fashioned, technical terminology, he
has generated his Gospel by 'Paulinizing the kerygma'}

Without the theory of Markan Priority, a theory that emerges directly
from the careful study of the Synoptic Problem, none of these reflec-
tions would be possible. We would have to paint a radically different
picture of Christian origins. There seems little doubt, then, that the
Synoptic Problem in general and Markan Priority in particular have an
enormous impact on the way we do New Testament scholarship. It is a
useful reminder that having some idea of the Synoptic Problem is
simply indispensable for reflection on the identity of the historical
Jesus and the development of Christian doctrine. One should not be
persuaded by the rhetoric of those who say that the Synoptic Problem is
boring or irrelevant!

Summary

• Markan Priority has caused scholars of the historical Jesus to
pay special attention to his accounts. In historical Jesus

3. Discussions of the Gospel genre abound, and various suggestions have been
made about ancient parallels for the Gospel genre. My point here is, not withstand-
ing that there are helpful parallels in other ancient materials, these are the factors
that probably led Mark to produce what most agree to be the first 'Gospel'. For
discussion of the secrecy motif in Mark, a good starting point is CM. Tuckett (ed.),
The Messianic Secret (London: SPCK; Philadelphia: Fortress Press Press, 1983).

4. Building on Markan Priority 99

research, Mark is therefore of key importance. Nevertheless, it
also needs to be noticed that literary priority is not everything,
and reflection on parallel Synoptic accounts sometimes leads
to the observation that Matthew and Luke may have interacted
not only with Mark but also with oral traditions as they
composed their Gospels.

The theory of Markan Priority encourages fruitful investiga-
tion of the origin of the Gospel genre. It is plausible to think
of Mark as the first author to compose a gospel, gathering
together the traditions at his disposal and subordinating mate-
rials about Jesus' life to a narrative focused on the Passion, so
stamping his book with a stress on a Pauline theology of a
suffering messiah.

4. Textual Criticism

This is the study of the actual physical manuscripts that are our wit-
nesses to the text of the New Testament, and it can interact with the
theory of Markan Priority in some fascinating ways. For if we place
Mark first, then Matthew and Luke become two of Mark's earliest
editors. Like later scribes copying out the text of Mark they inevitably
make corrections, additions, omissions and changes. And the changes
Matthew and Luke made as they rewrote Mark's material are especially
interesting in that they often parallel changes made by scribes copying
Mark. Sometimes this will be because the Markan scribes have been
influenced by the very changes that Matthew and Luke made in their
'versions' of Mark; sometimes it will be because the thought processes
that were influencing Matthew and Luke will have influenced Markan
scribes too; and sometimes it will be both factors, interacting with one
another.

To understand the point, we need to remember that we do not
possess the original autographs of the Gospels, but we work, instead,
from the many manuscript 'witnesses'. One of the text critic's key tasks
is the attempt to reconstruct the original text of each Gospel as accu-
rately as possible on the basis of careful analysis of these manuscripts,
a job that is particularly interesting in the case of the Synoptic Gospels,
where the material is often so similar. It is clear, for example, that
scribes who copied texts of Mark were often influenced by the parallel
texts in Matthew and Luke. They 'assimilated' to the more familiar

100

The Synoptic Problem

text, harmonizing to the version that they knew best. Consider the
following text, for example:

Matthew 12.3-4

Mark 2.25-26

Luke 6.3-4

He said to them.

And he said to them.

And Jesus answered.

'Have you not read

'Have you never read

'Have you not read

what David did, when

what David did when

he was in need and

was hungry, and those

was hungry, he and those

who were with him: how

he entered the house of

God

God, when Ahiathar was
high priest.

God.

and ate the

and took and ate the

bread of the Presence,

bread of the Presence.

bread of the Presence,

which it was not lawful

which it is not lawful

for him to eat nor for

for any but the priests to

those who were with

eat, and also gave it to

him. but only for the

those who were with

those with

priests?

him?'

The words in italics here, 'when Abiathar was high priest' (Mk
2.26), are an error. The incident related (1 Sam. 21.1-6) involves not
Abiathar but his father Ahimelech. On the assumption of Markan
Priority, Matthew and Luke realized this and omitted the words (for
there are no manuscripts of Matthew and Luke that feature the words
'when Abiathar was high priest'). It is of interest that certain scribes of
Mark made the same excision, perhaps under the influence of the more
familiar versions of the account in Matthew and Luke, perhaps (like
them) perceiving the error. Both Codex Bezae ('D'), an important
manuscript of the Gospels and Acts produced in about 400, and the
Freer Gospels (or Codex Washingtonianus, 'W'), an important manu-
script of the Gospels copied in the late fourth century, do not feature
these words in their copy of Mark.

In cases like this what one really needs is a three-dimensional
Synopsis.^ Normally, we look at two-dimensional synopses that show
us how critical, reconstructed texts of the Gospels relate to one another.

4. I am grateful to my colleague David Parker for some of these observations
{The Living Text of the Gospels [Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1997],
ch. 7).

4. Building on Markan Priority

101

This is what we have done in each example in this book so far. But one
of the difficulties with this standard approach is that it can lull one into
a false sense of security about the state of the text of the respective
Gospels, and in many cases something more elaborate would be more
appropriate. Perhaps, one day, someone will invent an electronic synop-
sis that enables one to view not just critical texts of Matthew, Mark and
Luke in parallel but also different texts of each of the Gospels, layered
on top of one another. In the meantime, we can at least add an extra
column to our threefold synopsis to illustrate the point a little further.
Here columns 1, 2 and 4 represent the usual 'critical text' of the Synop-
tics on which we have relied elsewhere in this book. This critical text is
a reconstruction, the best approximation that the experts can make to
what the original versions of the New Testament looked like. Column 3
shows how the same text looks in Codex Bezae, the early manuscript of
the Gospels mentioned above.

Matthew 8.3

Mark 1.41

Mar li 1.41

Luke 5.13

(Critical Text)

(Codex Bezae)

(Critical Text)

And

And having, been

And having been

And

moved with

compassion, and

anger, and

having stretched

out the hand, he

out his hand, he

out the hand, he

touched him.

touched (him).

touched him.

touched him,

saying.

and says to him.

saying.

i will; be clean'.

'I will; be clean'.

i will; be clean'.

'I will; be clean'.

One of the fascinating elements about the text here is the dis-
agreement over whether to read 'compassion' or 'anger'. Given that the
latter is in many ways the more difficult reading — scribes are likely to
have preferred the idea of a compassionate Jesus to an angry Jesus — it
may be that Codex Bezae has the authentic reading. This is then a
different but equally interesting case of textual criticism interacting
with the theory of Markan Priority. For here one cannot help thinking
that Matthew and Luke are more likely to have changed a text that read
'moved with anger' than they were to have changed a text that read
'moved with compassion', especially as Matthew has that very phrase
in a similar context elsewhere (Mt. 20.34). In this example, then, tex-
tual criticism helps us to reconstruct the text that may have been in

1 02 The Synoptic Problem

front of Matthew and Luke, and to discover a reason for their mutual
omission of words in Mark.

Textual criticism can, then, interact profitably with Synoptic Problem
scholarship, and in particular with the theory of Markan Priority. In the
story of the Leper, it can help us to speculate on the text of Mark from
which Matthew and Luke were working, adding an extra, fascinating
dimension to our Synoptic comparison and helping us to remember that
when we open the Bible we are looking not at the evangelists' original
words but at a modem scholarly reconstruction of what they may have
written.

And in our first example, the story of the Cornfield on the Sabbath,
text criticism can help us to see how scribes were influenced by Matt-
hew's and Luke's redaction of Mark. This does not necessarily consti-
tute an argument for the Priority of Mark, for it is a fact that scribes of
Mark oft;en 'assimilated' to the other Gospels, and especially to Matt-
hew, thus rewriting Mark, largely unconsciously, in the light of the
more familiar and much preferred Matthew. But to press this would be
to miss the point that Markan scribes are on what we might label a
'trajectory', which begins, on the assumption of Markan Priority, with
Matthew's and Luke's rewriting of Mark. Thus Matthew's and Luke's
interaction with Mark ultimately changed Mark too. It is arguably a
mark of the success of their rewriting of Mark that they so influenced
the textual tradition. And in their interaction with Matthew and Luke,
such Markan scribes take a position tantamount to correcting Mark,
tacitly siding with the later Gospels in their desire to correct and
improve it.

Summary

• Textual criticism, the study of the manuscripts of the New
Testament, reminds us that the differences between Matthew,
Mark and Luke are differences between modem, critical texts
of the Synoptics, texts that have been reconstmcted. It is
fascinating and informative to view Markan Priority through
the multiple lenses provided by textual criticism. Sometimes
we see signs of a text of Mark that perhaps Matthew and Luke
also saw; sometimes we see texts of Mark that have been
influenced by the changes made by Matthew and Luke.

4. Building on Markan Priority 1 03

5. Conclusion

Markan Priority remains at tlie heart of a great deal of New Testament
study. Our reflections on Marican Priority have helped us to see just
how relevant and valuable the study of the Synoptic Problem has
become as a building block for other elements in Gospel scholarship.
We have looked in this chapter at three important areas where reflec-
ting on Markan Priority can help us to discuss the New Testament and
Christian origins. Let us briefly summarize:

(a) Redaction-criticism: This has been one of the key critical
methods in New Testament scholarship, analysing the tenden-
cies, nature and distinctive emphases of the Synoptic Gospels
with a view to ascertaining the theological standpoint of their
authors. In study of Mark, Matthew and Luke, the theory of
Markan Priority has been key:

• Mark 's Gospel: Because of the theory of Markan Priority,
most scholars have assumed that Mark was the first writer
to forge together the traditional materials about Jesus into
a narrative framework with a specific agenda. The Gospel
genre was bom here. For many, the birth of the genre was
the result of Mark's attempt to couch the Jesus tradition in
the framework of a Passion that is anticipated from the
beginning, subordinating the materials about Jesus' life to
a narrative of suffering and death.

• Matthew and Luke: Markan Priority helps us to notice the
extent to which Matthew and Luke are attempts to 'fix'
Mark, to fill it out by adding birth and infancy tales at the
beginning, fuller resurrection stories at the end and lots of
fresh teaching material in between. Direct comparison
between the Synoptics quickly reveals each evangelist's
distinctive emphases, encouraging us to extrapolate to an
hypothesis about the evangelists' literary and theological
agendas.

(b) Historical Jesus and Christian Origins:

• Markan Priority has caused scholars of the historical Jesus
to pay special attention to Mark's accounts. In historical
Jesus research, Mark is therefore of key importance. Never-
theless, it also needs to be noticed that literary priority is

1 04 The Synoptic Problem

not everything, and reflection on parallel Synoptic accounts
sometimes leads to the observation that Matthew and Luke
may have interacted not only with Mark but also with oral
traditions as they composed their Gospels.
• The theory of Markan Priority encourages fruitful investi-
gation of the origin of the Gospel genre. It is plausible to
think of Mark as the first author to compose a Gospel,
gathering together the traditions at his disposal and sub-
ordinating materials about Jesus' life to a narrative focused
on the Passion, so stamping his book with a stress on a
Pauline theology of a suffering Messiah,
(c) Textual criticism: the study of the manuscript tradition of the
Gospels reminds us that the differences between Matthew,
Mark and Luke are differences between modem, critical texts
of the Synoptics, texts that have been reconstructed by means
of textual criticism. It is fascinating and informative to view
Markan Priority through the multiple lenses provided by
textual criticism. Sometimes we see a signs of a text of Mark
that perhaps Matthew and Luke also saw; sometimes we see
texts of Mark that have been influenced by the changes made
by Matthew and Luke.

These are just some of the ways in which we might reflect profitably
on the theory of Markan Priority. For our purposes, the most important
corollary of our decision in favour of Markan Priority is, however, the
one that builds on it to help us understand properly the data for which
we have not yet accounted on our way through the maze. Markan
Priority has profound implications for how we solve the remainder of
the Synoptic Problem. When in Chapter 2 we looked carefully at the
data, we divided it up into four major types, Triple Tradition, Double
Tradition, Special Matthew and Special Luke. The Triple Tradition
material, the pericopae that feature in all three Synoptics, seems to be
more than adequately explained by the theory of Markan Priority. In
each case, Matthew and Luke are literarily dependent on Mark. Let us
turn next, therefore, to the Double Tradition material, the pericopae
shared by Matthew and Luke alone.

There are two ways to explain the Double Tradition material by
taking for granted and building on Markan Priority. The first of these
theories we will look at next, the theory that Matthew and Luke used
Mark independently of one another, and thus that they could only have

4. Building on Markan Priority 1 05

taken over the Double Tradition from another, hitherto undiscovered
source. The second theory we will look at in the final chapter, in which
we will consider the weaknesses of the Q hypothesis, and build on
Markan Priority by suggesting that Luke knew Matthew as well as
Mark.

Chapter 5

1 . Introduction

'Q', the letter used for the hypothetical source that allegedly lies behind
much of Matthew and Luke, sounds mysterious and intriguing. On our
way through the maze, here is something that has a sense of the
thrilling. To many, the term Q quickly conjures up images from James
Bond or Star Trek. Perhaps, the reader thinks, this Q will be like the
James Bond character Q, played by Desmond Llewellyn, ever able to
provide some suitable new gadget appropriate to the occasion, equip-
ping us against implausible yet dangerous situations. Or perhaps it will
be like the Q of Star Trek: The Next Generation, an ever powerful,
strangely illusive, oddly irritating presence always lurking on the side-
lines to divert us from conducting our affairs in the way we would like.

Without doubt, the study of Q does carry a thrill for many scholars
and students of the New Testament. Some think that this lost source
provides us with a window onto the earliest years of the Christian
movement, and the work of uncovering Q is now often likened to the
work of excavating material in an archaeological dig. Not surprisingly,
the 'discovery' in modem times of this lost document has led to some-
thing of an industry in New Testament scholarship, attempting to recon-
struct its wording, its theology, its history, its origin. But before any of
this is possible, there is a prior question, a question sometimes ignored,
that requires careful attention; What is the evidence for this hypotheti-
cal document? How do we know that Q existed? Is the hypothesis
based on solid ground or might the Q of Gospel scholarship turn out to
be as fictional as the Qs of James Bond and Star Trek?

When beginning to explore the maze, we encountered two key
synoptic phenomena. The first and most striking kind of material that
we met was the 'Triple Tradition', material that is common to Matthew,
Mark and Luke. It is this material that was our primary focus in

5.Q 107

Chapter 3, for the standard explanation of the Triple Tradition is
Markan Priority, the theory that Mark was used by both Matthew and
Luke. The second kind of material we encountered was the phenome-
non of 'Double Tradition', material that occurs in both Matthew and
Luke but not in Mark. The standard explanation for this material is the
'Q' hypothesis, the notion that Matthew and Luke took the Double
Tradition from a source now lost to us.

Markan Priority and Q are the two aspects that make up the con-
sensus view, the Two-Source Theory (see Fig. 1 , p. 20 above).

Having looked at the first facet of this theory, Markan Priority, it is
now time to progress to the second, Q. As before, it is important that
the readers know their guide. While I think that Markan Priority is
rightly the consensus view, my view on Q attempts to challenge the
consensus. It can be shown that the standard arguments for the exis-
tence of Q are flawed and that the hypothesis is simply unable to bear
the weight of the evidence against it. This demonstration, though, will
have to wait largely until our next chapter. Before that, it will be nec-
essary to explain the grounds for the postulation of Q so that the reader
can see clearly why it is usually regarded as necessary.

Summary

• Q is the name given to an hypothetical

source

commonly

invoked to

explain the existence

of the

Double

Tradition.

Mark and Q

are Matthew and Luke

's 'two

sources'

, hence the

term the Twc

)-Source Theory.

2. The Double Tradition

First, we should revise our acquaintance with the Double Tradition.
Double Tradition is the name given to material that is common to
Matthew and Luke but which is not found in Mark. There are between
200 and 250 verses of such material and these verses are characterized
by a relative lack of narrative material. These verses include the Lost
Sheep, the Lord's Prayer, the Beatitudes, the Parable of the Talents (or
Pounds), the Centurion's Servant (or Son), and many other well-known
passages.

Double Tradition appears in the Synopsis (naturally) in two columns,
one for Matthew and one for Luke. The degree of agreement in wording

108

The Synoptic Problem

between Matthew and Luke varies. Sometimes there is almost a hund-
red per cent verbatim agreement, as with John the Baptist's preaching:

Matthew 3.7-10

'Offspring of vipers! Who warned
you to flee from the coming
wrath? Bear fruit therefore worthy
of repentance and do not presume
to say in yourselves, "We have
Abraham as father"; for I say to
you that God is able from these
stones to raise up children to
Abraham. Already the axe is laid
at the root of the trees; for every
tree not producing good fruit is
cut down and cast into the fire'.

Luke 3. 7-9

'Offspring of vipers! Who warned
you to flee from the coming
wrath? Bear fruit therefore worthy
of repentance and do not begin
to say in yourselves, "We have
Abraham as father"; for 1 say to
you that God is able from these
stones to raise up children to
Abraham. Already the axe is laid
at the root of the trees; for every
tree not producing good fruit is
cut down and cast into the fire'.

Here, only the Greek words for 'presume' and 'begin' differ.

Though on other occasions (for example the parables of the Great
Supper and the Talents/Pounds, Mt. 22.1-14//Lk. 14.16-24) the word-
ing is not so close, the verbatim identity in passages like this indicates
some sort of literary link between Matthew and Luke, a literary link in
addition to their common dependence on Mark. The Double Tradition
material of this kind might then be explained in any of three ways:

1 . Matthew used Luke.

2. Luke used Matthew.

3. Matthew and Luke both used a third document now lost to us.

Of these three options for explaining the origin of the Double
Tradition material, option 3 is by far the most popular. The third docu-
ment postulated is given the name Q, probably originating from the
German for 'source'. Quelle. Q is thought to be necessary for several
reasons. In this chapter our main task will be to look at these reasons.

Summary

The Double Tradition is non-Markan material common to
Matthew and Luke. The frequent near verbatim identity points
to some kind of literary link. The usual explanation is that
Matthew and Luke were both dependent on a lost source, Q.

5.Q 109

3. The Case for Q

Q is a derivative hypothesis. It is the result of a prior assertion, that
Matthew and Luke used Mark independently of one other. As soon as
one has postulated that Matthew and Luke are independent of each
other but at the same time dependent on Mark, it is the natural next step
to suggest that their common non-Markan material comes from a
third, otherwise unknown source. Therefore many of the traditional
arguments for Q are actually — quite naturally — arguments against the
dependence of one evangelist (usually Luke) on another (usually
Matthew). In other words, arguments against option 2 in the list above,
Luke's use of Matthew, are constituted as arguments in favour of
option 3, mutual dependence on a hypothetical document. The theory
that Matthew has read Luke (option 1 ) is rarely put forward by sensible
scholars and will not be considered here.

The first four arguments below are of this type: they are arguments
against Luke's use of Matthew, and so in favour of the Q hypothesis.
But there are also, especially in more recent literature on the Synoptic
Problem, arguments that are more positive. The fifth and sixth argu-
ments below are like this. In other words, the first four arguments
below give the same negative reason for believing in Q: that the alter-
native, Lukan knowledge of Matthew, is untenable. The fifth and sixth
arguments below are positive: that Q is a helpful hypothesis.

Summary

The case for Q depends largely on the prior assertion that
Matthew and Luke are independent of one another. Thus
arguments in favour of Q are often, in effect, arguments
against the primary alternative, Luke's direct use of Matthew.

Argument 1. Luke's Order

Many argue that Luke's arrangement of Double Tradition material is
inexplicable on the assumption that he has used Matthew. While a lot
of the Double Tradition appears in Matthew in five nicely structured
blocks of thematically related discourse (Mt. 5-7, 10, 13, 18, 24-25),
the same material appears in Luke in a radically different format, much
of it in a big central section (sometimes called The Travel Narrative',

1 1 0 The Synoptic Problem

Lk. 9.51-18.14). The point is felt so strongly that scholars have charac-
terized Luke's treatment (on this assumption) as the work of a 'crank',
or as one who has 'demolished' his source, or who has 'unscrambled
the egg with a vengeance'. Graham Stanton, for example, says that if
Luke read Matthew, he 'has virtually demolished Matthew's carefully
constructed discourses'' and Christopher Tuckett asks, 'If Luke knew
Matthew, why has he changed the Matthean order so thoroughly, dis-
rupting Matthew's clear and concise arrangement of the teaching mate-
rial into five blocks, each concerned with a particular theme?' ^

An important aspect of this argument is that Matthew often seems to
find an appropriate Markan context for Double Tradition material while
Luke does so more rarely. The John the Baptist material and the Temp-
tations, which feature both Markan and Q elements, occur in the same
context in all three Synoptics, but after this, Matthew and Luke usually
diverge in their placement of Q pericopae. Matthew and Luke differ
fairly consistently in their placing of this material.

There is one passage that is regarded as making the point with
special clarity, the Sermon on the Mount (Mt. 5-7), for if Luke used
Matthew, he cut the length of his Sermon considerably, writing the less
memorable Sermon on the Plain (Lk. 6.17-49), omitting much and
distributing the remainder at many different points in the Gospel. Fitz-
myer, for example, asks, 'Why would Luke have wanted to break up
Matthew's sermons, especially the Sermon on the Mount, incorporating
only a part of it into his Sermon on the Plain and scattering the rest of it
in an unconnected form in the loose context of the travel account'.^

Since Matthew's Sermon is widely regarded as one of the finest
pieces of religious writing of all time, most have felt it to be unlikely
that Luke would have disturbed, rewritten and spoilt his source. It is
seen as more plausible that Matthew composed the Sermon using the
shorter discourse in Q, best represented now by Luke's Sermon on the
Plain, at the same time incorporating elements from elsewhere in Q as
well as adding fresh material.

1 . Graham N. Stanton, 'Matthew, Gospel of, DBI, pp. 432-35 (434).

2. Christopher M. Tuckett, 'Synoptic Problem', ABD, VI, pp. 263-70 (268).

3. J. A. Fitzmyer, The Gospel According to Luke: Introduction, Translation and
Notes. I-IX (Anchor Bible, 28 A, New York: Doubleday, 1981), p. 74; cf. Tuckett,
'Synoptic Problem', ABD, VI, p. 268.

5.Q

111

Summary

Luke's order of Double Tradition material, and especially his
rearrangement of the Sermon on the Mount, seems inexplica-
ble on the assumption that he used Matthew.

Argument 2. Luke 's Ignorance of Matthew 's Additions to Mark
Another German scholar, Werner Georg Kiimmel, wrote an Introduc-
tion to the New Testament in the 1960s that is still widely used today.
He has a short discussion of the Q hypothesis in which he asks, is it
conceivable that Luke would have taken over none of the Matthean
additions to the Markan text?'^ If Luke knew Matthew as well as Mark,
he must have paid little attention to Matthew's versions of Mark's
material. If Luke knew only Mark and Q, on the other hand, this failure
to feature Matthew's additions to Mark is entirely explicable.

Mt. 12.5-7 is typical of the examples given. It is an insertion into Mk
2.23-28 par. (Cornfield), which features additional justification for the
breaking of the Sabbath, including a quotation from Hos. 6.6. Or
14.28-31 is mentioned, where Peter walks on the water, in the middle
of the Markan pericope in which Jesus walks on the water (Mk 6.45-
52//Mt. 14.22-33). Or there is 16.17-19, in which Jesus commends Peter
in the middle of the pericope of his Confession at Caesarea Philippi
(Mk 8.27-30, par.):

MatlheM- 16.15-19

Mark 8.29-30

Luke 9.20-21

15. He said to them.

29. And he asked them.

20. And he said to them,

'But who do you say that I

am?" 16. Simon Peter

am?" Peter

am?" And Peter

replied. 'You are the

answered him, 'You are

answered, 'The

Christ, the Son of the living

the Christ".

Christ of

God".

God'.

1 7. And Jesus answered

him. 'Blessed are you.

Simon Bar-Jona! For flesh

and blood has not revealed

this to you. but my Father

who is in heaven. 18.

And I tell you, you are

4. Kiimmel. Introduction to the New Testament, p. 50.

112

The Synoptic Problem

Peter, and on this rock I

will build my church, and

the powers of death shall

not prevail against it. 19.

I will give you the keys of

the kingdom of heaven, and

whatever you bind on earth

shall be bound in heaven.

and whatever you loose on

earth shall be loosed in

heaven'. 20. Then he

30. And he

21. But he

strictly charged the

charged

charged and commanded

disciples to tell no one that

them to tell no one

them to tell this to no one. . .

he was the Christ.

about him.

One can see the point at a glance. There is some interesting, non-
Markan material in Matthew 16.17-19 that has no parallel in Luke. The
question always asked is, Why, on the assumption that Luke used
Matthew as well as Mark, would he have omitted this fresh Matthaean
material?

Other examples might be given, but the point seems clear. If Luke
knew Matthew, it is regarded as strange that he apparently shows no
knowledge of such Matthaean additions to Mark. And if Luke was
ignorant of Matthew in passages like these, he was ignorant of Matt-
hew everywhere, and so the Q hypothesis becomes necessary in order
to make sense of the Double Tradition.

Summary

• Luke appears to be ignorant of Matthew's modifications of
Mark. This is inexplicable on the assumption that he knew
Matthew.

Argument 3. Luke 's Lack of 'M' Material

As we saw when surveying the data in Chapter 2 above, there is a large
body of material that occurs only in Matthew, the material that is
known as 'special Matthew' or 'M'. Those who question Luke's use of
Matthew point out that this material is entirely absent in Luke and thus
that he must have been ignorant of his Gospel. Fitzmyer, for example,
asks, 'If Luke depended on Matthew, why did he constantly omit

5.Q 113

Matthean material in episodes lacking Markan parallels, e.g. in the
infancy and resurrection narratives?'^

The argument sounds circular — Luke does not feature the M material,
the passages found only in Matthew, by definition. But the point gen-
erally made is that it seems unlikely that Luke would have omitted so
much of this rich Matthaean material. Luke's omission of the visit of
the Gentile magi (Mt. 2.1-12) in Matthew's Birth Narrative, for exam-
ple, is thought unlikely for an evangelist like Luke who was so inter-
ested in the Gentile mission. It is added more broadly that Luke's Birth
Narrative (Lk. 1-2) is so radically different from Matthew's (Mt. 1-2)
that again it is unlikely that Luke knew of it.

This argument is related to the previous one, not least given that
some of Matthew's special material (M) seems to occur in Triple Tradi-
tion contexts (as we saw in Chapter 2, above). Both of these arguments
focus on what is present in Matthew but lacking in Luke, just as with
Markan Priority one looks at what is present in Matthew and Luke but
lacking in Mark.

Summary

• Matthew's special material ('M') does not feature at all in
Luke, a sign that Luke did not know Matthew's Gospel.

Argument 4. Alternating Primitivity

The argument against Luke's use of Matthew, and so in favour of the Q
hypothesis, is strengthened further by a fourth consideration. If Luke
read Matthew, his versions of Double Tradition material ought always
to be secondary to Matthew's versions of the same material. On that
theory he would, after all, always be writing after Matthew and thus
with earlier versions of sayings in front of him, something that, accord-
ing to most, is manifestly not the case. Rather, it seems to be the case
that sometimes Matthew preserves the more original form of a saying
appearing in the Double Tradition; sometimes Luke preserves the more
original form. This, it is thought, would be inexplicable if one evangel-
ist (Luke) is following the other (Matthew).

Thus, sometimes Luke seems to be secondary to Matthew, as here,
for example:

5. Fitzmyer, Luke I-IX, p. 75.

114

The Synoptic Problem

MaltheM ~.I1

Lulie 11.13

•If you, then, who are evil, know-

"If you, then, who are evil, know

how to give good gifts to your

children, how much more will

your Father who is in heaven give

good gifts to those who

ihe Holy Spirit to those who

ask him'.

Most believe that Q featured the term 'good gifts', which makes
good literary sense of the material that has preceded this conclusion,
which talks about 'good gifts'. Luke, with his special interest in the
Holy Spirit, is then thought to have changed the Q version that is now
better represented by Matthew.

Points like this, Matthaean Priority in Q material, cause no problems
for the thesis of Luke's knowledge of Matthew, but the situation does
not always seem to be like this. The Q theory seems to be demanded by
the presence on other occasions of more primitive wording in Luke's
form of Double Tradition material. Perhaps the most popular examples
of supposed Lukan priority in Q material are the Lord's Prayer (Lk.
11.2-4; cf. Mt. 6.9-13), the Beatitudes (Lk. 6.20-23; cf Mt. 5.3-12) and
the doom oracle (Lk. 11.49-51; cf. Mt. 23.34-36). Luke's Lord's
Prayer, to begin with, is more terse than Matthew's. It is thought
unlikely that Luke would have reworked the (now more popular)
Matthaean version:

Matthew 6.9-13

Luke 11.2b-4

9. Our Father who art in heaven.

Father,

Hallowed be thy name

Hallowed be thy name.

10. Thy kingdom come.

Thy kingdom come.

TTiy will be done,

On earth as it is in heaven.

11. Give us this day our bread for

3. Give us each day our bread for

the morrow;

12. And forgive us our debts.

4. And forgive us our sins.

As we also have forgiven

For we ourselves forgive every one

our debtors;

who is indebted to us;

13. And lead us not into temptation.

And lead us not into temptation.

But deliver us from evil.

It is thought unlikely that Luke would have abbreviated the Matt-
haean version that is now so familiar to us, omitting lines like 'Thy will

5.Q 115

be done, On earth as it is in heaven' and 'deliver us from evil'. The Q
version of the prayer, then, will probably have looked more like Luke's
version, and the extra Matthaean parts (including 'Our Father who art
in heaven') will be distinctively Matthaean additions.

Likewise the Beatitudes. Luke's 'Blessed are the poor' (Lk. 6.20) is
thought likely to be the original Q form from which Matthew devel-
oped his 'spiritualized' version 'Blessed are the poor in Spirit' (Mt.
5.3). The reverse direction, the notion that Luke derived his down-to-
earth 'Blessed are (you) poor' from Matthew's 'Blessed are the poor in
spirit' is thought to be quite unlikely.

In all these and other cases, it is felt that the Lukan version is less
characteristically Lukan than the Matthean version is characteristically
Matthean, a situation easily explicable if both are independently redact-
ing an unknown source, Q, but implausible if Luke is redacting
Matthew.

Summary

• Sometimes Matthew, and sometimes Luke seems to have
the more primitive form of Double Tradition material. If Luke
had used Matthew, one would have expected Matthew always
to have the more primitive form, and Luke always to be
secondary.

Argument 5. The Distinctive Character ofQ

Forms of these four arguments (order; the lack of Matthaean additions
to Mark in Luke; Luke's lack of M material; and alternating primitiv-
ity) have been important in the establishment of the Q hypothesis. They
have been repeated many times over at least the last century or so. The
four arguments work on the assumption that by demonstrating the
implausibility of Luke's use of Matthew, one establishes the plausibil-
ity of the Q hypothesis.

It would be a mistake, however, to think of Q as depending solely on
negative reasoning. The hypothesis is not simply about the unlikeli-
hood of Luke's knowledge of Matthew. It is also about the probability
of Q. There is, therefore, a second category of argument concerning the
existence of Q and it is based on the notion that Q makes its presence
felt in the Gospels. It distinguishes itself from the other material in the

1 1 6 The Synoptic Problem

Synoptics not purely because it provides a preferable explanation for
the phenomenon of the Double Tradition but also because it is held to
have a special theology, vocabulary, history, structure and style. Q is
not the same as Matthew and it is distinct from Luke.

The importance of this argument for Q should not be underestimated.
Indeed, if anything, it has grown stronger in recent years. Though
sometimes spelt out explicitly, this argument is more often an implicit
one. There is now a vast amount of literature studying Q as a document
in its own right. Just as scholars have investigated the origins, char-
acteristics, theology, community and genre of each of the Synoptic
Gospels, so too they are now investigating Q along the same lines. The
research, like similar research into the Gospels, is wide-ranging, and Q
scholars argue among each other about their conclusions. But one
implicit consensus emerges: that Q is a document in its own right that
does not look like Matthew, Mark or Luke. Its distinctiveness is
becoming an important argument in its favour.

Summary

There are also two more positive arguments for the existence
of Q, which do not focus on the implausibility of Luke's use
of Matthew.

The first of these arguments is that Q has a distinctive char-
acter. Q is very different from Matthew and from Luke. There
is 'space' between the theology, history, genre and character
of Q and the theology, history, genre and character of the
Synoptics. Q makes its presence felt.

Argument 6. The Redaction-Critical Case

There is, further, a third category of argument, in addition to those from
the unlikelihood of Lukan use of Matthew and from the distinctiveness
of Q. Like the latter argument, this one has surfaced relatively recently.
It depends on the success of a related discipline, redaction-criticism, a
tool — let us remind ourselves — that might be defined as the study of
the way in which an author 'redacts' (edits) his source material with a
view to ascertaining the theological standpoint of the text and its
author. But in order to study the ways in which an author uses his
source material, one has to have an idea of what that source material is.

5.Q 117

On the whole, scholars have worked with the assumption that Matthew
and Luke were using Mark and Q. It is then thought that the success
with which the redaction-critics' work has been done provides a
corroboration of the starting-point, the postulation of Matthew's and
Luke's independent use of (Mark and) Q. The argument is stated
succinctly by Graham Stanton: 'The success of redaction criticism in
clarifying the literary methods and distinctive theological emphases of
Matthew and Luke on the assumption of dependence on Mark and Q is
an important argument in favour of the two-source hypothesis'.^ This
argument is perhaps the consideration that is most weighty in the mind
of the majority of contemporary scholars. What it amounts to is a
laissez-faire argument in favour of a conservative position: one ought
to maintain the status quo in the light of the fine scholarship that the
consensus has produced. As the popular saying goes, 'If it ain't broke,
don't fix it'.

Though the fifth argument, from the distinctiveness of Q, is
important, this one is more important still, for many believe in Q but
(relatively) few write books about it. This large, Q-believing majority,
takes the hypothesis for granted in its books on the New Testament,
and every time it is presupposed, the argument for Q apparently gains
more ground. In other words, if Q consistently makes sense in so many
different studies on the New Testament, it would seem to be a workable
hypothesis. And a workable hypothesis might well seem to be a plausi-
ble hypothesis.

Summary

Those who have assumed the Q hypothesis have produced
plausible redaction-critical studies of Matthew and Luke. This
is therefore a sign that the Q hypothesis is helpful and
plausible.

4. Conclusion

There are, then, six key arguments that tend to be used in the attempt to
establish the Q hypothesis. The first four of these are essentially nega-
tive arguments, arguments against Luke's use of Matthew. The other

6. Stanton, 'Matthew, Gospel of , p. 35.

1 1 8 The Synoptic Problem

two arguments are positive arguments that attempt to establish the
usefulness of the Q hypothesis. Let us summarize:

(a) It is unlikely that Luke knew Matthew: The source for the non-
Markan material that they share (Double Tradition) must
therefore be a third, otherwise unknown source. It is unlikely
that Luke knew Matthew for the following reasons:

• Luke's order is inexplicable on the assumption that he
knew Matthew.

• Luke 's ignorance of Matthew 's modifications of Mark:
This too would be inexplicable on the assumption that he
knew Matthew.

• Luke's lack of M material: Matthew's special material
('M') does not feature at all in Luke, a sign that Luke did
not know his Gospel.

• Alternating primitivity in the Double Tradition: Sometimes
Matthew and sometimes Luke seems to have the more
primitive form of Double Tradition material. If Luke had
used Matthew, one would have expected Luke always to
be secondary.

(b) Q has a distinctive character: Q is very different from Matt-
hew and from Luke. There is 'space' between the theology,
history, genre and character of Q and the theology, history,
genre and character of the Synoptics. Q makes its presence
felt.

(c) Q aids the task of redaction-criticism: Scholars who have
taken the Q hypothesis for granted have been successful
redaction-critics of the Synoptic Gospels.

Of course, all these arguments work together in the attempt to
demonstrate the plausibility of the Q hypothesis, mutually supporting
and illustrating one another. It is particularly difficult, for example, to
distinguish between the first two arguments above, the question of
Luke's order and the question of Luke's ignorance of Matthew's modi-
fications of Mark. Indeed they might simply be seen as two aspects of
the same basic argument, an argument that might be summarized in the
following way:

• It is difficult to believe that Luke knew Matthew given his
treatment of the Double Tradition material in relation to his
treatment of the Triple Tradition material.

5.Q 119

Or, to state the same thing more positively:

• The Two-Source Theory makes good sense of Luke's Gospel,
explaining both the way that the Double Tradition appears in
it and also the way in which the Triple Tradition appears in it.

Further, this takes for granted the argument from redaction-criticism,
for redaction-criticism is, as a discipline, all about 'making good sense'
of the Gospels.

How plausible, though, are these arguments? They have certainly
been influential and are often repeated. Versions of at least some of
these will be found in all introductions to the Synoptic Problem that
argue in favour of the Two-Source Theory. What is less often found is
a clear statement of the case against Q, or of an attempt to explore the
above points more carefully. In the next chapter, then, we will focus on
the case against Q, attempting to see whether the points above are
capable of a plausible answer and, furthennore, whether the alternative
case — for Luke's use of Matthew — might be more plausible still.

Before doing this, though, let us pause for a moment to consider the
language in which the arguments tend to be presented — the manner is
striking because the language is so strong. It seems that scholars are
unable to talk about the hypothesis of Luke's use of Matthew without
resorting to strings of rhetorical questions, with exclamation marks,
joke quotation marks, humorous imagery and, at times, even ridicule.
In most of the examples above, especially in the first four arguments,
the rhetoric is forceful. There are questions that do not require answers
(is it conceivable... ?'; 'What could have moved Luke... ?') and plenty
of rhetorical flourishes ('unscrambling the egg with a vengeance').
Matters do not seem to be implausible, unlikely or improbable. Rather,
they are 'untenable', 'inexplicable' and 'incomprehensible'. Likewise,
Luke does not disturb or alter Matthew's arrangements— he 'destroys'
or 'demolishes' them.

Why, then, is the language is so strong? Part of the answer is that it
is often a function of its context. The arguments for the existence of Q
tend to occur in introductory pieces, Bible dictionaries, introductions to
commentaries and similar, in which the scholar has word-limits to
worry about and the reader's patience at stake. Because of the limited
space, rhetorical questions and overstatement stand in for patient
argumentation. But this is not the whole picture.

A second reason for the inflated rhetoric is probably the conscious

1 20 The Synoptic Problem

imitation and unconscious influence of the most marked use of such
language, B.H. Streeter's famous attempt to dispose of the theory that
Luke used Matthew, an attempt that dates back to a seminal volume
called The Four Gospels published in 1924. Here Streeter wrote the
following paragraph:

If then Luke derived this material from Matthew, he must have gone
through both Matthew and Mark so as to discriminate with meticulous
precision between Marcan and non-Marcan material; he must then have
proceeded with the utmost care to tear every little piece of non-Marcan
material he desired to use from the context of Mark in which it appeared
in Matthew — in spite of the fact that contexts in Matthew are always
exceedingly appropriate — in order to re-insert it into a different context
of Mark having no special appropriateness. A theory which would make
an author capable of such a proceeding would only be tenable if, on other
grounds, we had reason to believe he was a crank.

This statement is often quoted and frequently echoed. Its influence
has been overwhelming. This is not surprising since the wonderftil
rhetoric is instantly memorable. No one wants to believe that Luke is a
'crank': they neither want to slander Luke nor to risk the charge of
being stupid themselves. Nor does anyone, with the slightest acquain-
tance with Luke's Gospel, want to feel that it could have been made up
of a perverse combing, tearing up and inappropriate restructuring of
Matthew. Streeter wins the day before the reader has even opened up
the Synopsis. As we will go on to see, however, the rhetoric is empty:
not only is the statement based on a rather dubious judgment of taste
(preferring Matthew's mechanical, thematic arrangements to Luke's
orderly, narrative-sensitive arrangements) but also Streeter misrepre-
sents the facts (Luke does not, on the assumption that he is using Mark
and Matthew, reinsert non-Markan Matthean material into 'a different
context of Mark').

Leaving that aside for a moment, one might guess at a further reason
for the excessive rhetoric. I suspect that for many there is a certain
feeling of frustration that debates over the Synoptic Problem continue
to rage on from year to year, that Q sceptics obstinately refuse to
acknowledge the supposed triumph of the Two-Source Theory. There
is the attitude that these are issues that were settled long ago — the
foundations were laid successfully and scholars have been building on

7. B.H. Streeter, The Four Gospels: A Study of Origins (London: Macmillan,
1924), p. 183.

5.Q 121

them without trouble ever since. Not only are Q sceptics a nuisance,
but they also appear to have a certain arrogance, the surprising and
implausible notion that they might be able to overturn the consensus of
a century.

Conversely, it is easy for Q sceptics to underestimate the sheer
persuasive force that the consensus, simply by virtue of its being the
consensus, continues to exert. This is particularly the case in relation to
the redaction-critical argument. In book after book, and article after
article, reasonable sense seems to be made of Matthew and Luke on the
assumption that they utilized Mark independently of one another. What
are a handful of publications, however erudite, against an avalanche of
books and articles making good literary, theological and historical
sense of Matthew and Luke, to say nothing of Christian origins more
broadly, on the assumption of Q?

It is worth seeing, though, that the rhetoric does communicate some-
thing important. While caricature and overstatement may not be the
way to truth, the language used in the standard arguments for Q per-
forms a function — it is attempting to show the student in an instant just
how implausible the thesis of Luke's knowledge of Matthew is held to
be. It is saying, in effect, 'Can you really believe thisT That is why the
rhetoric is most strident when one is dealing with the negative argu-
ments (1-^ above). There is less reason for it when calmly stating
positive reasons for believing in Q.

What we will want to know is whether the extremity of this reaction
against Luke's use of Matthew is justified. Is it obvious that matters
like alternating primitivity or the order of Double Tradition material
firmly establish Matthew's and Luke's independence from one another?
Are the data described accurately by opponents of Luke's use of Matt-
hew and Mark? If so, can Q-sceptical answers be credible? Let us take
a little time to investigate these issues with a clear head and a sharp
eye, leaving behind the excesses of rhetoric, and proceeding through
the maze with sobriety and care.

Chapter 6
THE Case against Q

1 . Introduction

Let us take stock and see where we have arrived. So far, we have seen
that the key to synoptic interrelationships is the consensus theory of
Markan Priority. This theory, which states that Matthew and Luke both
made direct use of Mark, makes better sense of the data than does its
main competitor, the theory that Mark wrote third, utilizing Matthew
and Luke. We have also had a look at the arguments in favour of its
sister theory, the Q hypothesis. The Q hypothesis is primarily depend-
ent on the notion that not only did Matthew and Luke use Mark but that
they also used Mark independently of one another. As soon as one has
stated this, Matthew's and Luke's independent use of Mark, the Q
hypothesis is the logical corollary: a text is needed that can explain the
close, verbal agreements between Matthew and Luke in passages that
are not in Mark (namely 'the Double Tradition'). Most of the argu-
ments for Q therefore tend to be arguments in favour of Matthaean and
Lukan independence from one another, though — as we have seen —
other kinds of argument for the existence of Q are also beginning to
emerge.

Now it is my view, as I have already hinted, that each one of the
standard arguments for Q is capable of refiitation. Not only has the per-
suasiveness of the standard arguments been greatly overestimated by
many scholars but the same scholars have also tended to underestimate
the positive evidence in favour of Luke's use of Matthew. Let us
proceed through the next part of the maze, then, following this route.
First, we will look at answers to the arguments for Q that were laid out
in the previous chapter, noting that not one of them is strong enough to
make the case. Then we will look closely at evidence in favour of
Luke's use of Matthew and will conclude by reflecting on the possi-
bility of a world without Q. This chapter will be a little longer than

6. The Case Against Q 123

previous ones because the task is larger: to look at both the problems
with the standard case for Q and to make the positive case for Luke's
use of Matthew.

First, though, let us remind ourselves of the shape of the theory that
is defended here (see Fig. 2 above, p. 22).

Q has no part to play in the Farrer Theory, which is also known as
'the Farrer-Goulder theory', 'Mark without Q' or 'Markan Priority
without Q'. The notion that Luke has direct access to the Gospel of
Matthew as well as to the Gospel of Mark enables one, as Austin Farrer
(the scholar responsible for the theory) put it, to 'dispense with Q'.'
Second, one should notice that Mark remains at the top of the diagram:
Markan Priority is strongly affinTied. The Farrer Theory should not be
confused with the Griesbach Theory, which rejects not only Q but also
Markan Priority. Reputable scholars have been known to confuse the
two theories or even to be ignorant of any difference between them.
Indeed it is still often assumed, especially in American scholarship, that
the case against the Griesbach Theory is identical with the case in
favour of the Two-Source Theory, a state of affairs that helps to
supervise the dominance of the consensus position on Q. It is some-
times assumed that arguments in favour of Markan Priority themselves
constitute arguments in favour of Q, a position that is quite mistaken.

Summary

• 77?^ Farrer Theory affirms Markan Priority but suggests that
Luke also knew and used Matthew, which enables one to
dispense with Q.

2. Responding to the Arguments for Q

Argument L Luke 's Order

How, then, does a scholar convinced of Luke's use of Matthew respond
to the point so strongly and commonly made that Luke simply could
not have destroyed Matthew's fine ordering of material? The problem
with the argument can be seen most clearly if we return to Streeter's
influential formulation of it and take a careful look at it:

1 . Farrer, 'On Dispensing with Q".

1 24 The Synoptic Problem

If then Luke derived this material from Matthew, he must have gone
through both Matthew and Mark so as to discriminate with meticulous
precision between Marcan and non-Marcan material; he must then have
proceeded with the utmost care to tear every little piece of non-Marcan
material he desired to use from the context of Mark in which it appeared
in Matthew — in spite of the fact that contexts in Matthew are always
exceedingly appropriate — in order to re-insert it into a different context
of Mark having no special appropriateness. A theory which would make
an author capable of such a proceeding would only be tenable if. on other
grounds, we had reason to believe he was a crank.'

Apart from the inflated rhetoric, there are important problems with
this statement, not least that Streeter misrepresents an important fact.^
As it stands, the statement appears convincing because the process
described would indeed make Luke into something of a 'crank'. But
the process is inaccurately described. Most of the pieces of Luke's
Double Tradition do not appear in a 'different context of Mark',
whether appropriate or otherwise, because very little of Luke's Double
Tradition occurs in a Markan context at all. That is, whereas Matthew
often features Q in Markan contexts, Luke rarely does. Most of Luke's
Q material occurs in two sections, 6.20-8.3 and 9.51-18.14, and in
these sections there is very little use of Mark."^ Therefore the question
we should be asking is not. Why does Luke place non-Markan material
from Matthew in different Markan contexts? but rather, Why does
Luke, on the whole, place non-Markan material from Matthew in non-
Markan contexts?

When we frame the question accurately, the answer comes forth
naturally, but in order to see it we need to notice a second major
problem with Streeter' s statement: it is based on a rather dubious value
judgment, one that prefers Matthew's order and arrangement to Luke's.
It is a judgment that we are not required to share. For while there is no
doubt that Luke's ordering of the Double Tradition material is often
strikingly different from Matthew's, one should not think of difference

2. Streeter, The Four Gospels, p. 183.

3. For the following, cf Goulder, Luke, p. 39, and E.P. Sanders and M. Davies,
Studying the Synoptic Gospels (London: SCM Press; Valley Forge, PA: Trinity
Press International, 1989), pp. 114-15: Streeter's argument "depends on one value
judgment and some incorrect generalisations' (p. 1 14).

4. The only exceptions to this general rule are the John the Baptist — Tempta-
tions material in Lk. 3^ and the Parable of the Pounds in Lk. 19.1 1-27, the former
incidents in the same Markan context and the latter a different one (from Matthew).

6. The Case Against Q 125

from Matthew as inferiority to Matthew. After all, 'Matthew's order' is
precisely that, Matthew 's order and if one pauses to think about it, it is
easy to see why Luke might have wanted to alter it. Matthew's re-
ordering of Mark has a particular, distinctive structure: there are five
great edifices in chs 5-7 (Sermon on the Mount), 10 (Mission Dis-
course), 13 (Parables), 18 (Church instructions) and 24-25 (Eschato-
logical Discourses), each a large block of Jesus' sayings, each one
marked off with 'When Jesus had finished these sayings [etc.]...'.
Material from Mark occurs to varying degrees in each of these
structures. For example, Matthew 13 is clearly based on the shorter
parable chapter in Mark 4, and Matthew 24-25 is clearly based on the
shorter eschatological discourse in Mark 13. Other material from Mark
is interspersed between each of these discourses. Now, what we need to
ask is whether it is plausible that Luke, having come across this major
restructuring of Mark by Matthew, would feel himself obliged to
follow it. The answer is that Luke is highly unlikely to have wanted to
follow this more rigid arrangement that we find in Matthew, in which
one cannot help thinking that the narrative flow is severely and fre-
quently compromised. From what we know of Luke's literary sensitiv-
ity and artistic ability, we are bound to conclude that Luke would not
have found Matthew's restructuring of Mark congenial.

The point is reinforced in several ways. First, we can already see
from Luke's use of Mark that he has a certain reticence over lengthy
discourses, a reticence that suggests that he will have been more con-
cerned still about the excessively lengthy Matthaean discourses like the
Sermon on the Mount. For while Mark's Gospel does not contain any-
thing as long as the Sermon on the Mount, there are some fairly size-
able discourses, one of which is the Parable chapter, Mark 4. Where
Matthew, typically, increases the length of the chapter from Mark's 34
verses to his 52 verses (Mt. 13.1-52), Luke, equally typically, shortens
it, so that his discourse is less than half the length of Mark's, only 15
verses. Mark's discourse consists of the Sower (4.1-9), its interpret-
ation (4.13-20), the Purpose of Parables (4.10-12), the Lamp under a
Bushel (4.21-25), the Seed Growing Secretly (4.26-29), the Mustard
Seed (4.30-32) and a summary (4.33-34). Matthew 13 contains all this
and much more. Luke, on the other hand, treats it in just the same way
that, on the Farrer Theory, he treats the Sermon on the Mount. Some of
it is retained, the Sower and its Interpretation (Lk. 8.4-8, 11-15), the
Purpose of Parables (8.9-10) and the Lamp (8.16-18); some of it is

1 26 The Synoptic Problem

omitted, the Seed Growing Secretly and the summary; and some of it is
redistributed, the Mustard Seed (Lk. 13.18-19). Let us have a look at
this in summary format:

Mark

Luke

4.1-9: Parable of the Sower

Paralleled in 8.4-8

4.10-12: Purpose of Parables

Paralleled in S.9-\0

4.13-20: Interpretation of the Sower

Paralleled in %.\\-\S

4.21-25: Lamp Under a Bushel

Paralleled in %.\6-n

4.26-29: Seed Growing Secretly

Omitted

4.30-32: Mustard Seed

Redistributed: 13.18-19

4.33-34: Summary

Omitted in Luke

Nor is this an isolated example — the same feature is observable
again with Luke's treatment of the discourse in Mk 9.33-50, Luke's
parallel to which is only five verses long (Lk. 9.46-50). The point, then,
is this: given Luke's clearly observable reticence over retaining long
discourses in his acknowledged source Mark, it is scarcely a major leap
of imagination to see the same reticence at work in his treatment of his
alleged source Matthew. On the Farrer Theory, Luke here treats Matt-
hew in the same way that we can see him treating Mark: retaining some
of the substance of the discourse and omitting and redistributing the
rest.^

Second, literary critics have now been making good sense of the
order and literary design of Luke for some time. As appreciation for
Luke's literary ability and for the narrative coherence of his Gospel
intensifies, so too it will seem less necessary to appeal to the Q theory
to explain the quirks of his order. As we saw above, Streeter's state-
ment implies a negative value judgment on Luke's order in comparison
with Matthew's, a judgment that is becoming increasingly difficult to
sustain in the light of contemporary narrative-critical studies of Luke.
To take just one good example, Luke places the Double Tradition peri-
cope 'Care and Anxiety' (Mt. 6.25-34//Lk. 12.22-34), in an excellent
and appropriate literary context following on from his unique parable
of the Rich Fool (Lk. 12.15-21), the parable warning those members of
the crowd (who still have possessions, 12.13-14) that life does not

5. This point is developed from Goulder. Luke. pp. 39-41 . For an answer from
the perspective of the Q theory, see Christopher Tuckett, Q and the History of Early
Christianity (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1996), pp. 26-27.

6. 77?^ Case Against Q 127

consist of the abundance of possessions, and ttie latter exhorting 'the
disciples' (12.22) not to be anxious about their lack of possessions,
something that is a prerequisite for discipleship in Luke (e.g. 5.11;
5.28; 14.33). This kind of sensitive narrative arrangement, so typical of
Luke, gives some indication of how overstated it is to speak of Luke
'demolishing' Matthew's Sermon on the Mount and 'scattering the
ruins to the four winds'.

Third, the idea that Luke is conservatively following the order of Q
has always had difficulty with one of the most important pieces of
evidence, the Lukan Preface, which seems to emphasize so strongly the
matter of order. He appears to be critical of predecessors' attempts to
write narratives of the Jesus story (Lk. 1.1) and he goes on to say that
he has investigated everything carefiilly (1.2) so that he might write to
Theophilus accurately and in order {\.?)). On the Q theory, there is little
reason for this overt stress on order, since Luke's order is usually taken
to replicate the orders of material in his two main sources, Mark and Q
order and Q's order. But on the Farrer Theory, the stress is understand-
able: Luke is making clear that he is critical of his predecessors' work
and that his radical reordering of Matthew is in Theophilus's best
interests.

Fourth, and finally, if Markan Priority is correct, it is likely that Luke
has known Mark for longer than he has known Matthew. Let us say
that the standard dating for Mark, somewhere in the late sixties, is
correct (see above) and that the standard dating for Matthew, around
80, is also correct. Under these circumstances, Luke may well have
been familiar with Mark's Gospel for some years longer than he has
been acquainted with Matthew. Perhaps, let us speculate, Matthew
provided the direct catalyst for Luke's reworking of Mark. He sees
what Matthew has done: he has reworked Mark by adding birth and
infancy narratives at one end of the Gospel, a resurrection story at the
other end and adding lots of sayings material in the middle. Perhaps,
Luke thinks, he can do the same kind of thing, but do it better, retain-
ing Mark's essential narrative outline but expanding it by adding birth
and infancy narratives at one end of the Gospel and resurrection stories
at the other, adding extra material — especially sayings — in between.
Indeed, not only can he use Matthew's basic idea of 'fixing' Mark in
this way but he can also utilize some of this fine new Matthaean
material in his own restructuring of Mark. In other words, it is easy to
imagine an historical scenario that might give birth to a Gospel in

1 28 The Synoptic Problem

which an evangelist essentially follows Mark but is at the same time
influenced by and critical of Mark's first corrector. But if this kind of
scenario is on the right lines, we run straight into one of the major
arguments in favour of Luke's independence from Matthew, the ques-
tion of Luke's alleged lack of Matthew's additions to Mark, to which
we turn next.

Summary

Luke's order: It is said that Luke's order of Double Tradition
material is inexplicable on the assumption that he has taken
it from Matthew. There are several difficulties with this
argument:

• Dubious value judgments: The standard argument assumes
that Matthew's arrangement of Double Tradition, with its
lengthy discourses, is preferable to Luke's with its emphasis
on narrative movement.

• Comparison with Luke's use of Mark: Luke treats
Matthew's lengthy discourses in the same way that he treats
Mark's discourses: he keeps some, omits some and redistri-
butes the rest.

• Narrative-Criticism of Luke: This helps us to dispense with
the idea that Matthew's arrangements are superior to
Luke's — Luke's rearrangements make excellent narrative-
critical sense.

• Luke's preface (1.1-4): This implies a critical attitude to his
predecessors' order, which makes good sense on the
assumption that Luke is working with Matthew as well as
Mark, but less sense on the Q theory, on which Luke largely
keeps Q's order.

• Markan Priority: If Luke has known Mark for longer than
he has known Matthew, this may well have encouraged him
to prioritize its order over Matthew's.

Argument 2. Luke 's Ignorance of Matthew 's Additions to Mark
Let us proceed to the second major argument for Q and see whether it
fairs better than the previous one. It will be useful to look at an
important recent statement of the argument. This is how it is put by one
of Q's most formidable defenders, Christopher Tuckett:

6. The Case Against Q 1 29

Luke never appears to know any of Matthew's additions to Mark in
Markan material. Sometimes, in using Mark. Matthew makes substantial
additions to Mark. of. Mt. 12.5-7; 14.28-31; 16.16-19; 27.19, 24. If Luke
knew Matthew, why does he never show any knowledge of Matthew's
redaction of Mark? It seems easier to presume that Luke did not know
any of these Matthaean additions to Mark and hence that he did not know
Matthew.^

There are two things wrong with this argument. First, the examples
given are not strong enough to make the case. Mt. 14.28-31 (listed by
Tuckett second above), for example, is a Matthaean addition in the
middle of the story of the Walking on the Water (Mk 6.45-52//Mt.
14.22-33), a story that is wholly absent from Luke, in either its Markan
or Matthaean form. One can hardly be surprised that Luke lacks the
Matthaean additions to a story that does not feature at all in his GospeL
The other examples mentioned have such a characteristically Matthaean
stamp that it is straightforward to imagine why Luke might prefer the
Markan version that had been more familiar to him over a longer
peiiod of time. In particular, we should not be surprised to see a Lukan
version of the confession at Caesarea Philippi that does not feature that
material about the ascendancy of Peter (to see the passage in synopsis,
see above, pp. 111-12). After all, Luke's Gospel is not as positive
about Peter overall as is Matthew's, and the narrative development of
Luke-Acts — in which Peter progressively recedes further and further
into the background — would seem to exclude the possibility of Luke's
inclusion of the Matthaean statement. It's exactly the kind of Matthaean
addition to Mark that we would expect Luke to omit.

The second problem with the argument is that it is based on a fallacy.
Why does Luke not feature any of Matthew's modifications of Mark?
Well, he does! On the assumption that he knows Matthew as well as
Mark, Luke prefers Matthew's version to Mark's in several Triple
Tradition incidents: the whole John the Baptist complex (Mt. 3; Mk 1;
Lk. 3); the Temptation (Mt. 4.1-1 1//Mk 1.12-13//Lk. 4.1-13), the Beel-
zebub Controversy (Mt. 12.22-30//Mk 3.20-27//Lk. 11.14-23) and the
Mustard Seed (Mt. 13.18-19//Mk 4.30-32//Lk. 13.18-19) among them.
On all of these occasions, the parallels between Matthew and Luke are
more extensive than those between Mark and Luke. Indeed the early
parts of each Gospel are particularly rich in examples of Luke appar-
ently following Matthew's modified versions of the shorter Markan

6. Tuckett, Q, pp. 7-8.

130

The Synoptic Problem

pericope. Take John the Baptist's prophecy about Jesus, for example,
which appears in all three Synoptics:

Matthew 3.11-12

Mark 1. 7-H

Luke 3.16- r

7. 'And he preached.

16. 'And John answered.

saying.

saying to all.

11. ' "I. on the one hand.

"I. on the one hand.

baptize you in water for

baptize you in water

repentance, hut the one

'The one

but the one

who is coming after me is

who is stronger than me

stronger than me.

comes after me, the thong

comes after me. the thong

the shoes of whom

of whose sandals

I am not worthy

I am not worthy, having

I am not worthy

to untie.

stooped down, to loose.
8. 1 baptized you in water
[cf Mt. 3.11 //Lk. 3.16],

to loose.

He will baptize you in

but he will baptize you in

He will baptize you in

holy spirit and fire. 12. His

holy spirit".'

holy spirit and fire. 17. His

winnowing fork is in his

hand and he will clear his

hand to clear his

threshing floor and he will

threshing floor and to

gather his wheat into his

gather the wheat into his

granary, but the chaff he

will burn with

unquenchable fire^\^

unquenchable flre^\''

The words in italics are particularly noteworthy in that they seem
clearly to represent substantial addition to Mark by Matthew, material
then paralleled in Luke, quite clearly refuting the claim that such mate-
rial 'never' occurs. The same is true in the nearby story of the Tempta-
tion of Jesus. Mark's version (Mk 1.12-13) is only two verses long,
whereas Matthew (Mt. 4.1-11) and Luke (Lk. 4.1-13) both have an
extended story featuring a major dialogue between Jesus and the Satan
with the three famous temptations and rebuttals. Once again, it will
seem to the scholar assuming Markan Priority without Q that the simple
Markan story has been elaborated by Matthew and copied by Luke. Or,
to put it another way, Luke has here preferred to use Matthew's
substantial modification of the Markan story. The argument from
Luke's lack of Matthew's modifications of Mark seems to be refuted by
a simple glance at the Synopsis.

Why then is the argument still made? Surely Q theorists know about

6. The Case Against Q 131

such features? Indeed they do, but their force tends not to be felt for
two reasons. First, some of the most impressive examples of this fea-
ture come, as we have seen, in Luke 3^, covering material like John
the Baptist and the Temptations. This is usually admitted as a major
exception to the rule, an exception that is not then allowed to cause
doubt about the basic proposition. Second, the difficulty for the Q
theory tends not to be spotted because examples of this kind are placed
in a special category described as 'Mark-Q overlap'. 'Mark-Q overlap'
passages might be more neutrally described as passages occurring in all
three Synoptics in which Mark is not clearly the middle term, or, to put
it another way, as the category of passages that blur the usually more
straightforward distinction between Triple Tradition' and 'Double
Tradition' (see further Chapter 2). The sharp reader will be quick to see
the fallacy at the base of this argument for Q. For where Luke (on the
assumption of Markan Priority without Q) prefers the Matthaean
version of a pericope shared with Mark, this automatically goes into
the 'Mark-Q overlap' category. And where Luke prefers the Markan
version of a pericope shared with Matthew, this is held to demonstrate
his lack of knowledge of the Matthaean versions of Markan pericopae.
This argument is particularly weak and it should be dropped from
future defences of the Q theory.

Summary

The argument from Luke's ignorance of Matthew's additions

to Mark runs into insurmountable problems:

The examples given are weak: Luke's omissions are quite

natural when one looks at them in line with his redactional

interests.

The argument is based on a fallacy: wherever Luke features

Matthew's additions to Mark, these are placed in the category

'Mark-Q overlap' and, as far as this argument is concerned,

they are ignored.

Argument 3. Luke 's Lack of M Material

In some ways, the third argument for the existence of Q, Luke's lack of
Matthew's Special Material ('M') is weaker still. There is an obvious
circularity in this argument: of course Luke does not include 'M' mate-
rial. Any substantive material he included from Matthew would auto-

132

The Synoptic Problem

matically have become, to use the Two-Source Theory's nomenclature,
'Q' material. Or, to put it another way, any of Matthew's Special
Material used by Luke would cease to be Matthew's Special Material
and would become instead Double Tradition. This objection is largely
conceded by Q theorists, but they add that Luke's Birth Narrative is so
radically different from Matthew's that it is unlikely he knew of it; and
they claim in addition that Luke would not have rejected the very rich
material that M constitutes.

Several important points need to be made here. First, one has to note
that knowledge of a source is not the same as direct use of a source,
and the important question is whether there are any signs of Luke's
knowledge of Matthew in the Birth Narrative. He may well, after all,
have been inspired and informed by it without necessarily utilizing it in
any extensive way. Now there are indeed some signs that Luke knows
Matthew's Birth Narrative. Not only do they agree on matters unique to
the two of them within the New Testament, like Jesus' birth in Bethle-
hem, the name of Jesus' father (Joseph) and, most importantly, the
Virginal Conception, but they even share words in common, including
this key sentence: '^

Matthew 1.21

Luke 1.31

She will give birth to a son and
you shall call him Jesus.

You will give birth to a son and
you shall call him Jesus

Perhaps Matthew's Birth Narrative gave Luke the idea of writing a
Birth Narrative of his own. Because of our familiarity with the Birth
Narratives, we assume that prefacing a Gospel with a Birth Narrative is
a self-evidently obvious thing to do, but neither Mark nor John thought
that it was such an obvious thing to do, and, all things considered, the
presence of a Birth Narrative in Luke is probably a sign that Luke
knows Matthew. Moreover, if, as seems likely, Luke thought that he
could improve on Matthew's account, then subsequent history, devo-
tion and liturgy have agreed with him. It is from Luke that we get our
shepherds, our choir of angels and our manger; it is from Luke that we

7. I am grateflil to Jeff Peterson for this point. The phrase is identical in the
Greek. Note how in both cases it is a singular verb, 'You (sg.) shall name him
Jesus.' This is addressed to Joseph in Matthew, who then indeed 'named him Jesus'
(1.25), but not so appropriately to Mary in Luke, who is not going to be solely
responsible for naming him (cf 1.59-66; 2.21).

6. The Case Against Q 133

derive our picture of Mary; and it is from Lulce that we take our
canticles, the Benedictus, the Magnificat and the Nunc Dimittis.^

If this explains the differing Birth Narratives, what of the rest of
Matthew? Why did Luke omit so much of it? If one has a look again at
the 'M' material (see above. Chapter 2), one cannot help noticing that it
is largely defined by very particularly Matthaean interests. In other
words, this is like the question raised in the previous section. One will
expect Luke to include only the 'Luke-pleasing' elements from Matt-
hew, and the more one looks at the M material, the more one notices
just how little it fits with Luke's literary and theological interests. We
will return to this issue below. For the time being, let us note that this
argument for the existence of Q is an unpersuasive one.

Summary

Luke lacks Matthew's Special Material by definition. Where

Matthew's non-Markan material appears in Luke, it is called

'Double Tradition'.

Although he does not utilize it extensively, there are signs that

Luke knows Matthew's Birth Narrative.

The 'M' material all looks like 'Luke-displeasing' material,

just what we would expect on the Farrer Theory.

Argument 4. Alternating Primitivity

The argument that works from the allegation that sometimes Matthew,
sometimes Luke has the more original form of Q sayings is perhaps the
most influential of the arguments in favour of Q. It is certainly one of
the arguments most regularly cited by those attempting to establish Q.
However, careful analysis of the argument shows that there are weak-
nesses in using it as if the data under discussion inevitably point to the
existence of Q. The data are at least equally well explained on the
assumption of the Farrer Theory. Since this does not tend to be seen in
the literature, I will attempt to explain why by taking it in four steps.

8. The point about Luke's not including the Magi is particularly unconvincing.
Yes indeed, these are Gentiles, and yes. Luke is interested in the Gentile mission,
but we need to consider the whole spectrum of Luke's interests and avoid looking at
only one of them. Luke is highly suspicious of magi, as we know from one of the
chief villains in Acts. Simon Magus (Acts 8.9-24).

134

The Synoptic Problem

1 . Where Luke Is Agreed to Be Secondary. There is no problem for the
Farrer Theory in occasions where the Matthaean wording of a Q saying
is thought to be more original than the Lukan wording, as in our
example above (p. 114), where Matthew's 'good gifts' (Mt. 7.11) is
almost universally regarded as more original than Luke's 'Holy Spirit'
(Lk. 11.13). Here, the verdict of scholarship will be congenial to the
thesis of Luke's use of Matthew.

2. The Question of Matthaean Language. When scholars say that
Luke's versions of Q sayings are prior to Matthew's versions of those
same Q sayings, they are often basing their decision on the presence of
'Matthaean language' in the Matthaean versions of the Q sayings.
Where Matthew's versions feature language characteristic of Matthew,
it is assumed that Matthew has added this wording to a Q saying that
lacked it. Where Luke's versions lack this Matthaean wording, it is
claimed that his versions are the more original ones. Such logic only
works, however, once the Q hypothesis has been assumed. For if Luke
used Matthew, one will expect to see Luke rewording the Matthaean
original and, in the process, eliminating some of that Matthaean lan-
guage. After all, one of the things that (on the Farrer Theory) will make
such language distinctive of Matthew is the omission of such language
by Luke. Luke's omission of the Matthaean language ultimately has the
effect of making the Lukan version look more 'original'.^

As usual, the point is best made by means of an illustration. The
following beatitude is thought to have been in Q because it is present in
both Matthew and Luke:

Matthew 5. 6

Luke 6.21

Blessed are those who hunger and
thirst for righteousness, for they
shall be satisfied.

Blessed are those who hunger
now, for you
shall be satisfied.

9. This is an element in a broader phenomenon labelled the 'Matthean vocabu-
lary fallacy' by Michael Goulder. See Goulder, Luke, pp. 11-15; but modified in
Mark Goodacre. Goulder and the Gospels: The Examination of a New Paradigm
(JSNTSup, 133; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1996), pp. 83-85. For a
related issue, see Michael Goulder, 'Self Contradiction in the IQP', JBL 118 (1999),
pp. 506-17.

6. The Case Against Q 135

Many scholars have correctly pointed out that 'righteousness' is a
characteristically Matthaean word. It has figures of 7/0/1, which means
that it occurs seven times in Matthew, never in Mark and only once in
Luke (Mt. 3.15; 5.6; 5.10; 5.20; 6.1; 6.33; 21.32; Lk. 1.75). Indeed the
theme of seeking righteousness appears to be a major theme in Matt-
hew's Gospel (see, for example, Mt. 6.33). Q theorists then infer that
Luke better represents the original Q version of the saying, which
Matthew has 'glossed' with one of his favourite themes. This, then, is
held to be one of the occasions on which Luke's version of Q material
is more 'primitive' than Matthew's version, and so closer to Q.

But the inference that Matthew is glossing a Q text better represented
in Luke's version is not the only possible inference. It is just as possi-
ble, and arguably more plausible, to see Luke following Matthew and
omitting his reference to 'righteousness', not least given the fact that
one of the very things that will make a word specifically characteristic
of Matthew is omission of that word by Luke. Under such circum-
stances, what we have to ask is whether the Lukan version of a given
saying appears to be in line with Luke's observed practices elsewhere.
And here, in Lk. 6.21, we could hardly want for a more Lukan theme
than a blessing on those who 'hunger now'. This blessing is paired with
a 'Woe on those who are already filled, for you will be hungry' (Lk.
6.25). Not only is the theme of 'eschatological reversal' in general one
of Luke's favourites (see further on this below), but also he seems fond
of the specific application to 'the hungry' being 'satisfied' and 'those
already filled' getting nothing. The theme is at the heart of one of
Luke's most famous and distinctive parables, the Rich Man ('who
feasted sumptuously every day', Lk. 16.20) and Lazarus ('who longed
to satisfy his hunger with what fell from the rich man's table', Lk.
16.21), but also it is there right at the beginning of the Gospel, in one
of the key, characteristic Lukan passages, the Magnificat:

1.53: 'He has filled the hungry with good things and sent the rich away
empty.'

There is little difficulty, then, in seeing Lk. 6.21 as being derived
from Mt. 5.6. Luke rewrites the beatitude by eliminating the character-
istically Matthaean stress on 'righteousness', instead stressing one of
his own favourite themes of eschatological reversal, the hungry filled,
the rich sent away empty. It is often similarly the case elsewhere that
presence of characteristically Matthaean language in Matthew's versions

136

The Synoptic Problem

of Q material causes people to overestimate the evidence in favour of
the Q theory.

One might also draw attention to a related feature. The calculation
that Lukan forms of Q sayings are sometimes more original than their
Matthaean counterparts is also based on a feature of Luke's style. Luke
is a subtle and versatile writer with a large vocabulary and a tendency
to vary his synonyms. Matthew, on the other hand, has a more pro-
nounced, easily recognizable style, and he does not have so rich a voca-
bulary. It is consequently much less straightforward to judge Lukan
redactional activity than it is to pick out where Matthew has edited
sources, and it is correspondingly easy to jump to the conclusion that
an apparently 'un-Lukan' form is a 'pre-Lukan', Q form. Frequently
one sees claims that a given word is 'un-Lukan and therefore pre-
Lukan'. '«

The appearance of more original Lukan forms in Q material is partly
a consequence, therefore, of the way in which Q theorists calculate
these supposedly more primitive versions. They do not pay due atten-
tion to the fact that Luke's style is so much more difficult to pin down
than is Matthew's, and they do not consider the fact that the Matthaean
language present in Matthew's versions might equally well tell in
favour of the Farrer Theory.

3. Neglected Arguments for Lukan Secondariness. Regularly, argu-
ments in favour of Lukan secondariness are simply overlooked by Q
theorists. A classic example of this is the first beatitude. Let us have a
look at it in synopsis:

Matthew 5. lb- 3

Luke 6.20

'His disciples came to him, and he

"Looking at his disciples.

opened his mouth and taught them.

he said:

saying:

"Blessed are the poor in spirit.

"Blessed are the poor.

for theirs is the kingdom of heaven".'

for yours is the kingdom of God".'

It is almost universally held that Matthew's 'in spirit' here is a
secondary, 'spiritualizing' gloss on the more primitive Q version best
represented by Luke. Indeed, it is a text book example of the very argu-
ment we are currently considering. But the standard view actually has,

1 0. This matter is dubbed 'the Lukan priority fallacy' by Goulder, Luke, pp. 1 5- 1 7.

6. The Case Against Q 137

to say the least, no more going for it than does the alternative view that
Luke's version is secondary, simplifying and 'secularizing' his source
in Matthew. There are at least four reasons to find it plausible that Luke
removed 'in spirit' from his version of the beatitude:

1. Luke's is commonly regarded as the Gospel of the poor, the
destitute, the outcast, the widow, the underdog. It would be
entirely in character for Luke to revise his source in the way
proposed.

2. This beatitude stands at the agenda-setting outset of Jesus'
second major discourse in Luke. The first major discourse, in
the synagogue at Nazara (4.16-30), also begins with a blessing
('good news') on 'the poor' (4.18), where Jesus announces
himself to be the one anointed to fulfil the prophecy of Isaiah
61.

3. Unlike Matthew, the beatitude in Luke has a corresponding
'woe' on 'the rich' (Lk. 6.24). This kind of thing is classic
Luke and is usually given the name 'eschatological reversal',
which means that the roles in the present world order are
reversed in the kingdom of God. As we saw above, it has a
particularly famous statement in the Magnificat (Lk. 1.46-55),
and it is given special treatment in the parable of 'the rich
man' and 'the poor man' (Lazarus) in Lk. 16.19-31, which one
might almost regard as a narrative version of this (and the
next) beatitude.

4. The narrative-critic will be sensitive to both the audience and
the narrative context of this beatitude in Luke. It is spoken to
'disciples', who, in Luke, have 'left everything' (Lk. 5.1 1, 28)
to follow Jesus. Since in Luke poverty appears to be a prereq-
uisite for discipleship, we will hardly be surprised to see the
disciples blessed as 'the poor'. Indeed we hear in 14.33, that
'None of you can become my disciple if you do not give up all
your possessions' (cf. also pp. 126-27 above).

In short, a pause to consider Luke's characteristic procedure con-
firms that we should not be at all surprised with a change from
Matthew's 'poor in spirit', a phrase, incidentally, that is found nowhere
else in Matthew, to 'the poor', as distinctive a Lukan interest as one
can find. This is one example among many of the existence of good

1 3 8 The Synoptic Problem

arguments for Lukan secondariness in a passage where his primitivity
is usually taken for granted.

4. The Living Stream of Oral Tradition. The issue is further
complicated by the likelihood that on occasions Luke may well have
preserved elements from different versions of Jesus' sayings in his oral
tradition. When we were looking at Matthew's and Luke's relation to
Mark, we noted the absurdity of assuming that oral traditions of the
Jesus story died out as soon as the evangelists committed them to papy-
rus and, consequently, the likelihood that the later evangelists redacted
Mark in the light of their knowledge of such oral traditions. This means
that on occasion, Matthew and Luke inevitably bear witness to differ-
ent, sometimes more original versions of Jesus material than the ver-
sions found in their literary source, Mark. Consequently, it is scarcely a
major leap of the imagination to see Luke occasionally bearing witness
to different or more original versions of sayings found in his literary
source, Matthew.

Some Q sceptics feel a little uncomfortable with this scenario since it
might at first sight appear to allow Q to creep in through the back door.
Is this, to use another image, a kind of 'closet Q', believing in a form of
the Q hypothesis but not owning up to it? I don't think so. I would
prefer to call it Luke's creative, critical interaction with Mark and
Matthew in the light of the living stream of oral tradition. Let us be
clear: the notion that Luke was influenced by oral traditions of Jesus
materials in no way compromises the theory of his literary dependence
on Mark and Matthew. Unless we also believe that Matthaean versions
of Triple Tradition pericopae are always and inevitably secondary to
their Markan parallels, we should not find the thesis of occasional
Lukan Priority in Double Tradition materials strange. Just as Matthew
and Luke interacted with Mark in the light of their knowledge of
similar stories from oral tradition, so too 1 propose that Luke interacted
with Matthew in the light of his knowledge of similar material in oral
tradition.

The example we used above (pp. 95-96) to see this phenomenon at
work in Luke's use of Mark was the words at the institution of the
Eucharist. One of the values of this example was that it was concerned
with words used in early Christian liturgy, precisely the kind of place
where one would expect to see this kind of thing happening, influence
on Luke from oral traditions of the material he also knew from Mark.

6. The Case Against Q 139

Now one of the clearest examples given of the Lukan version of
Double Tradition being prior is a similar example, the Lord's Prayer,
again the kind of material that we will expect to have been subject to
variation in oral tradition. Even today, where the Lord's Prayer is often
known primarily orally and not in dependence on a written text, one
finds local variation. The same kind of thing seems highly likely to
have been the case when Luke comes to write his version of the prayer
in 11.2-4. He looks at the Matthaean version but re-writes it in line
with the version more familiar to him from frequent recitation in his
own tradition. Just as many Catholics today end the prayer where
Matthew ends it, at 'Deliver us from evil', not adding 'Thine be the
kingdom, the glory and the power, for ever and ever Amen' (which is a
scribal addition to Matthew, perhaps also influenced by oral tradition),
so Luke ends his prayer with 'Lead us not into temptation' and not with
'But deliver us from evil', in spite of the fact that the latter is present in
his text of Matthew. Just as Catholics today know of the existence of
the 'Thine be the kingdom...' clause, but choose not to use it because
of familiarity and loyalty to their own tradition, so too it is hardly diffi-
cult to think of Luke knowing the clause 'But deliver us from evil' but
not using it for the same kind of reason.

The observation that both Matthew and Luke sometimes appear to
have the more original forms of the Double Tradition material does not,
then, serve to establish the existence of Q. Not only has the extent of
Luke's supposed primitivity been greatly overestimated, based partly
on misconstrued assessments of the presence of Matthaean language,
but even on the occasions where Luke does show possible signs of
primitivity, this is only evidence for Q if one is prepared to deny a role
to the living stream of oral tradition in the composition of Luke's
Gospel.

Summary

• The A rgument from alternating primitivity
the following steps:

• There are many places where all
secondary.

can be countered
agree that Luke

in
is

140

77?^ Synoptic Problem

Matthaean language: The presence of Matthew's favour-
ite expressions in Q material is regularly taken to indicate
that his versions are later than Luke's versions. But the
same evidence is congenial to the thesis that Luke is
using Matthew: Matthew composes the non-Markan mate-
rial using characteristic expressions and Luke sometimes
eliminates such expressions. Further, Luke has a much
larger vocabulary than Matthew and he uses many more
unusual expressions. It is a fallacy to assume that 'un-
Lukan' expressions are necessarily 'pre-Lukan' expres-
sions.

Neglected arguments for Lukan secondariness: Some-
times scholars have greatly underestimated the arguments
for Luke's redaction of Matthew (e.g. the Beatitudes).
The living stream of oral tradition: Oral traditions did not
die a death as soon as the evangelists set pen to papyrus.
Just as Matthew creatively interacted with Mark in the
light of oral traditions, so too did Luke with Matthew and
Mark.

Argument 5. The Distinctiveness ofQ

The idea that Q is distinctive, that it makes its presence felt by means
of its content, genre and theology, is becoming one of the major
arguments in favour of its existence. Indeed the reconstruction of Q,
the analyses of its text, the studies of its supposed literary history, are
all now making a major contribution to the study of the Synoptic
Problem and one ignores them at one's peril. It is generally thought
that it would be impossible for such convincing studies of Q as a text in
its own right to be written if Q never actually existed.

It is difficult to answer this argument succinctly. Providing a
carefully documented response to the many studies of Q currently
circulating would require something of a major monograph itself
Nevertheless, the reader will be wise to bear in mind the following
points:

(a) Studies that assume Q inevitably cause a re-entrenchment of
the notion that Q is distinctive. The repeated analysis of the
Double Tradition material in isolation from its Matthaean and

6. The Case Against Q 141

Lukan contexts generates a momentum of its own, the ten-
dency of which is to reinforce the starting point, which was
the isolation of the Double Tradition material from its con-
texts in Matthew and Luke. It is rare to see Q scholars pausing
to reflect on how the same evidence appears on a Q sceptical
theory, and ultimately this is the kind of thing that is needed in
order to test claims that the distinctiveness of the Q material
implies the existence of a Q document.

(b) Claims about the distinctiveness of Q tend to underestimate
the degree of overlap that exists between the Double Tradition
(Q) and special Matthew (M). It is impossible, for example, to
distinguish between the style of some of the units of M
material and some of the units of Q.

(c) It is sometimes said that Luke must have taken over some
pericopae from Q that Matthew did not also take over. In other
words, the hypothetical document Q overlaps with but is not
identical with the Double Tradition material. It is a notorious
difficulty, however, to isolate alleged Q pericopae in Luke
outside of the Double Tradition, something that is odd given
the claims about the distinctiveness of Q's thought and style.
Indeed the candidates most commonly suggested, like Lk.
1 1.27-28 (Woman in the Crowd), Lk. 12.15-21 (Parable of the
Rich Fool) or Lk. 15.8.10 (Lost Coin) all have an uncannily
Lukan ring about them — their Lukan style is, if anything, as
marked here as anywhere.

(d) We need to bear in mind that the Double Tradition does have
a distinctive profile on the Farrer Theory as well as on the Q
theory. For if one assumes the Farrer Theory, Q is constituted
by those parts of Matthew's non-Markan material that most
appealed to Luke. Or, to put it another way, they are the
'Luke-pleasing' elements in Matthew's extra material. If one
wanted to put this into an equation, it would look like this:

Q = (Matthew minus Mark) divided by 'Luke-pleasingness'

And this is something that we can test, for if Q is indeed the result of
the selections from Matthew's non-Markan material that Luke found
'pleasing', then we will expect the material he left behind to be in some
way Luke-displeasing. Now the material that, on the Farrer Theory,

142

The Synoptic Problem

Luke left behind is the M material or 'Special Matthew', the pericopae
that are in Matthew alone. So does the Q material generally have a
'Luke-pleasing' profile and the M material a 'Luke-displeasing' profile?
Indeed they do. The Q pericopae are precisely the ones we would
expect Luke to take over fi-om a book like Matthew, Jesus' ethical
teaching in the Sermon on the Mount, the Centurion's Boy, the Lost
Sheep, teachings about discipleship and the rest, and there is not a peri-
cope in M that looks congenial to Luke: several have an oddly 'legend-
ary' character (e.g. Mt. 17.24-27, Coin in the Fish's Mouth) and others
are in direct conflict with Luke's theology (e.g. Mt. 25.31-46, the
Sheep and the Goats). Indeed it has long been recognized that the Q
material has something of a pro-Gentile profile whereas the M material
tends to be inspired by and focused on the Jewish-Christian mission
and interests. In other words, the general profiles of Q and M turn out
to be precisely what we would expect them to be if the Farrer Theory is
correct.

Summary

The argument from distinctiveness ofQ is not decisive:

• The isolation of the Double Tradition from its context in
Matthew and Luke inevitably generates a distinctive
profile for Q.

• The overlap between Q material and M material partly
undermines the claim.

• It is difficult to discover good candidates for material that
might have derived from Q among Luke's special
material.

• The Double Tradition has a distinctive profile on the
Farrer Theory, namely: (Matthew minus Mark) divided by
'Luke-pleasingness' .

Argument 6. The Success of Redaction-Criticism
Redaction-criticism of Matthew and Luke has progressed, on the whole,
on the assumption that the Two-Source Theory is correct. The apparent
success of this kind of redaction-criticism, which was one of the most
important enterprises in Gospel criticism in the latter half of the
twentieth century, appears to corroborate its basic premises, the priority

6. The Case Against Q 143

of Mark and the existence of Q. There are, however, major difficulties
with using this as an argument in favour of the existence of Q:

(a) Those using this argument tend to state it in terms of the
success of the Two-Source Theory generally and not in terms
of Q specifically. This is problematic, for while an argument
of this kind might legitimately be used in favour of Markan
Priority, for which we have an extant text with which we can
compare Matthew and Luke, it is much less straightforward to
use it in favour of Q, which is hypothetical. As often, Q is
allowed to piggy-back onto Markan Priority, and to gain
credibility by association with it.

(b) The Q theory gains an unfair advantage over the Farrer
Theory here because it has, as an hypothetical document, a far
greater degree of flexibility. When we work with Luke's
knowledge of Matthew, we are always looking at comparison
between known texts. But Q, by contrast, can be manipulated.

(c) We only have any idea of the contents of Q by attempting to
reconstruct the document. And the primary means by which Q
is reconstructed is by means of redaction-criticism. There is
thus an unavoidable circularity in using this argument in
favour of the existence of Q — a tool that has been used to
generate a document is said to corroborate the existence of the
document that has been generated.

(d) Also related is, once more, the issue of entrenchment.
Repeated studies of Matthew and Luke assume Q, thereby
making those studies normative. It does not take long before
one of the very tools for the study of Matthew and Luke is Q.
The argument from the status quo then becomes little more
than an assertion about the status quo.

It appears, then, that of the several arguments that are put forward to
defend the Q theory, not one of them is adequate to the task. Indeed, in
several of these categories, we cannot help thinking that the evidence
in favour of the alternative position, Luke's use of Matthew, is stronger.
In themselves, though, the answers to these arguments are not enough.
It is true that, in the absence of good arguments for Luke's independ-
ence from Matthew, we might find ourselves drawn towards the Farrer
Theory, but what we would like ideally is some concrete evidence. Is
there anything that points directly to Luke's use of Matthew? The good

144

The Synoptic Problem

news is that there is plenty of evidence in favour of Luke's use of
Matthew, evidence that is repeatedly underplayed, misconstrued or
ignored in Gospel scholarship.

Summary

• The argument from the success of redaction-criticism is also
unconvincing:

• Sometimes Q is allowed to gain credibility by association
with Markan Priority, for which this argument is more
legitimately used.

• As an hypothetical document, Q has a degree of flexi-
bility that gives it an unfair advantage.

• Since Q is reconstructed by means of redaction-criticism,
it can become a circular argument to assert Q on the basis
of redaction-criticism.

• An inevitable entrenchment of Q occurs the more it is
assumed.

3. Evidence of Luke 's Use of Matthew

Speculation and critical reflection on Luke's potential objectives in
reworking Matthew will sound hollow if we are short of positive
evidence that Luke knew and used the Gospel of Matthew. The
evidence under consideration in this final, major section of our journey
through the maze is therefore of vital importance. For here we will be
considering the grounds for believing that Luke was familiar with
Matthew. The decisive evidence can be considered under four head-
ings, three of which we have already encountered in other contexts. We
will take the most well known of these first, the Minor Agreements
between Matthew and Luke against Mark.

a. The Minor Agreements

If Luke is dependent on Matthew, we will expect him to show
knowledge of Matthew not only in the Double Tradition passages, that
is, those passages usually attributed to Q, but also in the Triple
Tradition passages, that is, those passages where he is dependent on
Mark. Even if Mark is his primary source for the Triple Tradition
material (see above. Chapters 3^), we will nevertheless expect him to

6. The Case Against Q

145

show some knowledge of Matthew's versions of this same material.
This is indeed what we find.

The term 'Minor Agreements' refers to those agreements between
Luke and Matthew against Mark in the Triple Tradition material. Their
importance as evidence for Luke's use of Matthew should not be
underestimated. For if Luke sometimes agrees with Matthew against
Mark in important ways, then Matthew and Luke were not written
independently of one another. And if they were not written independ-
ently of one another, Q is no longer required to explain the Double
Tradition material^ — -for this, Luke can be dependent primarily on
Matthew."

There are many, many Minor Agreements between Matthew and
Luke against Mark. A good number of them can easily be explained on
the assumption that Matthew and Luke are independently redacting
Mark, coinciding in their attempts to polish up his literary style, to alter
his harsh view of the disciples, his less reverential view of Jesus and so
on. However, there is an irresolvable rump of agreements that simply
will not go away. One of the most interesting occurs in a passage to
which we have referred already, when Jesus is being mocked:

Matthew 26.67-68

Mark 14.65

Luke 22.64

Then they spat

And some began to spit

Now the men who were

into his

on him, and to cover his

holding Jesus mocked him

face, and struck him; and

face, and to strike him.

and beat him; thev also blind-

some slapped him, saying.

saying to him,

folded him and asked him.

'Prophesy to us, you

'Prophesy!'

'Prophesy!

Christ! Who is it that

Who is it that

struck you?'

And the guards received
him with blows.

struck you?'

1 1 . Frans Neirynck. has attempted to counter this argument by pointing out that
if the Minor Agreements were to demonstrate subsidiary Lukan dependence on
Matthew in the Triple Tradition, then by analogy they would only demonstrate sub-
sidiary dependence on Matthew in the Double Tradition. In other words, Q could
still be postulated as the main source for the Double Tradition material. However,
this misses the fact that the Farrer Theory's argument from the Minor Agreements is
not and has never been an argument from analogy. Rather, it is an attempt to point
to concrete evidence of Luke's knowledge of Matthew, evidence that inevitably
undermines the major premise of Q. which is that Matthew and Luke are inde-
pendent of one another. For details see Goodacre, Goulder and the Gospels,
pp. 126-29; for Frans Neirynck's most recent statement, see 'Goulder and the Minor
Agreements', ETL 73 (1997), pp. 84-93.

1 46 The Synoptic Problem

The passage is a helpful one for several reasons. Since this passage
occurs in the Passion Narrative, the Minor Agreement cannot be due to
use of Q. Q does not have, according to any of its contemporary
defenders, a Passion Narrative. Moreover, five words in Greek, the
words here translated as Who is it that struck you?, occur in both
Matthew and Luke but not in Mark. One of the words, the verb to strike
(in Greek paiein) is rare — it occurs only here in Matthew and only here
in Luke. It is not, then, the kind of agreement for which common oral
tradition is likely to be an explanation.

The most obvious scenario is that Matthew is here typically attempt-
ing to clarify the rather darkly ironic Markan scene, in which Jesus is
taunted with the demand 'Prophesy!' as his tormentors are in the very
act of fulfilling his prophecy (see further above, p. 64). Luke then fol-
lows Matthew in adding the clarificatory words, betraying his knowl-
edge of Matthew.

How do Q theorists deal with this evidence? On the whole, they are
troubled by it since they realize that it challenges the notion of Luke's
independence from Matthew, the premise behind the Q theory. The
leading defence here is that Matthew did not originally contain the
words Who is it that struck you? The theory is that these words were
added by Luke and that scribes of Matthew then interpolated them into
their versions of Matthew. This is a process known as 'conjectural
emendation', where a scholar proposes an emendation to the text with
no warrant anywhere in the textual tradition — no known text of Matt-
hew is without these words. Conjectural emendation is usually prac-
tised sparingly by Gospel scholars, and it is particularly problematic
here, where the primary reason for practising it is to defend an already
troubled synoptic theory, the Q hypothesis.'-

There is some further evidence from within the category of the
Minor Agreements that points not just to some contact between Matt-
hew and Luke but specifically suggests the direction of dependence,
Luke's knowledge of Matthew. For there is a small rump of Minor
Agreements that bear the unmistakable marks of Matthew's character-
istic style or vocabulary, indicating that Luke might have inadvertently
betrayed his knowledge of Matthew. Let us look at an example of this:

12. For further details on this, see my Goulder and the Gospels, pp. 101-107,
and the literature cited there.

6. The Case Against Q 1 47

Matthew 22.27

Mark 12.22

Luke 20.32

Later than all,
the woman died.

Last of all also
the woman died.

Later also

the woman died.

This verse comes in a stoiy in which some Sadducees question Jesus
about the resurrection. The woman marries seven brothers in sequence,
each of whom dies, and then at the end she dies herself. Where Mark
expresses this by saying that she died 'last' (Greek eschaton), Matthew
and Luke both use the word 'later' (Greek hysteron). Now this might
not look, at first sight, particularly remarkable. But the interesting thing
about the choice of this word is that it occurs regularly in Matthew —
seven times — but never in Luke (or Acts) outside of this parallel with
Matthew. Furthennore, it is a word that Matthew appears to use in a
distinctive way, to mean the last in a series (cf. both Mt. 21.37 and
26.60-1). On another occasion he again writes 'later' {hysteron, Mt.
21.37) where Mark writes 'last' {eschaton, Mk 12.6). In other words, it
seems likely that Matthew has made a change to his Markan source in
characteristic Matthaean manner, and that Luke has followed him,
inadvertently betraying to us that he knows Matthew.

Nevertheless, one difficulty remains. Are not these Minor Agree-
ments problematic for the case against Q in that they are, on the whole,
so very minor? Should we not, if the Farrer Theory is correct, expect
some more substantial agreement between Matthew and Luke against
Mark? Indeed we should, and the mistake made by those pressing the
point is that there is evidence for more substantial agreement between
Matthew and Luke against Mark, evidence that is ignored in this con-
text because it is placed in a different category of its own, usually
labelled 'Mark-Q overlap', and we will turn to this next.

Summary

The Minor Agreements between Matthew and Luke against
Mark point to Luke's knowledge of Matthew in the Triple
Tradition material.

Strong Minor Agreements occur in the Passion Narrative,
where no one can appeal to influence from Q.

148

The Synoptic Problem

Several Minor Agreements show the marks of Matthew 's
distinctive style, suggesting that Matthew has modified
Mark and that Luke has followed Matthew.

b. Passages in Which Mark Is Not the Middle Term
When we began exploring the maze, in Chapter 2, taking a basic
itinerary of all the available data, we found that there was one inter-
esting class of material that defied straightforward categorization. Sev-
eral pericopae appeared to object to the standard rule that Mark is the
middle term. These pericopae did not allow themselves to be described
either as Double Tradition (since they had parallels in Mark) or as
Triple Tradition (since they featured major and not minor agreements
between Matthew and Luke against Mark). Now another way of
describing passages like this, in which Mark is not the middle term, is
as pericopae occurring in all three Synoptics that feature substantial
agreement between Matthew and Luke against Mark. This is a scenario
that is problematic for the Q theory but highly congenial to the idea that
Luke knew both Mark and Matthew and I will attempt to explain why.

First, this kind of passage is problematic for the Q theory because the
material attributed to Q (i.e. the major agreements between Matthew
and Luke against Mark) appears to presuppose the material present in
Mark. This is much less congenial to the Q theory, which usually holds
that Q was independent of Mark, than it is to the Farrer Theory, on
which Matthew (and Luke) are presupposing Mark. To see the point,
have a look again at one of the key 'Mark-Q overlap' passages, the
John the Baptist complex:

Matthew 3. II -12

Mark 1. 7-8

Luke 3.16-17

7. 'And he preached.

16. 'And John answered.

saying,

saying to all,

11.' "I, on the one hand.

"I, on the one hand.

baptize you in water for

baptize you in water

repentance, but the one

"The one

but the one

who is coming after me is

who is stronger than me

stronger than me,

comes after me, the thong

the shoes of whom

of whose sandals

I am not worthy

I am not worthy, having

I am not worthy

to untie.

stooped down, to loose. 8.

to loose.

6. The Case Against Q

149

I baptized you in water

[cf. Mt. 3.11//Lk.

3.16],

He will baptize you in

but he will baptize you in

He will baptize you in

holy spirit and fire. 12. His

holy spirit".'

holy spirit and fire. 17. His

winnowing fork is in his

hand and he will clear his

hand to clear his

threshing floor and he will

threshing floor and to

gather his wheat into his

gather the wheat into his

granary, hut the chaff' he

granary, but the chaff he

will burn with

unquenchable fir e''\ '

unquenchable fire''.''

Now what is so interesting here is the sheer degree of overlap
between Mark, and Q, overlap that amounts apparently to verbatim
agreement between them. For we simply cannot imagine, for example,
that Q just featured the words 'and fire' (Mt. 3.11//Lk. 3.16). These
words require an antecedent, something exactly like 'he will baptize
you in holy spirit', the very words that do appear in Mark (Mk 1.8 and
parallels). On the Q theory, the Q document would appear to pre-
suppose precisely the material that we can see to be present in Mark,
which is more than a little odd if Mark and Q are (as most hold them to
be) independent. On the Farrer Theory, by contrast, we can see
Matthew simply presupposing his Markan source and elaborating on it,
and subsequently getting followed by Luke. It is a much more straight-
forward theory.

There is, further, some additional corroboration for the Farrer
Theory's perspective here. For if Matthew has added this fresh material
to Mark, subsequently to be copied by Luke, we will expect the fresh
material to feature some characteristically Matthaean language and
themes. And this is exactly what we do find. For if any Gospel is par-
ticularly fond of the language of judgment, with Jesus separating the
good and the evil, the wise and the foolish, the wheat and the weeds,
often expressed using harvest imagery, it is Matthew's (cf., for exam-
ple, Mt. 7.16-20; 12.33-37; 13.24-30, 36-43, 47-50; 25.31-46). It would
be entirely in character here for Matthew to have introduced elements
like judgment, separation and hell-fire.

But the existence of these passages is further troubling for Q because
they contradict the assertion that Matthew and Luke only agree
together against Mark in minor ways. This is important because it is
sometimes said that the problem with the Minor Agreements (see

150

The Synoptic Problem

above) is that they are 'too minor' to make the case for Luke's use of
Matthew strongly enough. We need to see that this is simply not the
case — there are several passages that feature major agreements between
Matthew and Luke against Mark. Similarly, as we saw above, the
existence of these passages simply contradicts one of the major argu-
ments for Q, that Luke never takes over Matthew's additions to Mark
in Triple Tradition material.

Along with the Minor Agreements on the one side and the 'pure
Triple Tradition' passages on the other side, this kind of passage
establishes the existence of a continuum that makes good sense on the
Farrer Theory, for if Luke has both Mark and Matthew as primary
sources, we will expect this to have resulted in a sliding scale of
Matthaean influence on Luke, from pure Triple Tradition passages that
feature Minor Agreements, to Mark-Q overlap passages that feature
major agreements between Matthew and Luke against Mark, to Double
Tradition passages where Luke is dependent solely on Matthew. We
might represent this scenario as in Fig. 4:

Greater

Influence

from

Matthew

Less

Pure

Double
Tradition

(Q)

Mark-<3 Overlap

Triple Tradition
passages with
Minor Agreement

Greater

Influence from
Mark

Less

Fig. 4. Scale of Matthaean Influence on Luke

Here we note that there is a continuum in Luke's use of Mark and
Matthew, from passages where Luke is primarily dependent on Mark,
with only minor or subsidiary influence from Matthew, to passages
where Luke is more strongly influenced by Matthew (the so-called
'Mark-Q overlap' passages currently under discussion) to passages
where Luke has Matthew as his sole source ('pure Double Tradition' or

6. The Case Against Q 151

'Q' passages). In short, the existence of these passages causes some
major difficulties for the Q theory while they are precisely what we
would expect if Luke has used both Mark and Matthew.

Summary

• Major agreements between Matthew and Luke against Mark:
although commonly placed in a category of their own labelled
'Mark-Q overlap', the difficulty these passages pose for the Q
theory should not be underestimated:

• They contradict the assertion that Luke never features
Matthew's modifications of Mark in Triple Tradition
material.

• They illustrate the mid point on a continuum of Luke's
use of Matthew, from greater (pure Double Tradition) to
lesser (Triple Tradition).

c. The Narrative Element in Q

It is commonly said that Q provides us with a 'sayings source' or a
'Sayings Gospel' in which there is 'no narrative frame'. At first sight,
this indeed seems to be the case: we saw when first exploring the maze,
for example, that much of the Double Tradition material is sayings
material — beatitudes, parables, aphorisms, exhortation and teaching
material of different kinds. But on closer inspection, we find something
very revealing, evidence that suggests that we should be cautious over
talking about Q as a 'sayings source' or a 'Sayings Gospel', evidence
that points, once more, to the plausibility of the Farrer Theory.

The feature of Q that is not commonly noticed is that its first third
apparently has a marked narrative sequence in which the progress of
Jesus' ministry is carefully plotted. In outline the sequence goes as
follows:

(a) John the Baptist appears in the region of the Jordan (Mt.
3.6//Lk. 3.3).

(b) John baptizes people with 'his baptism' (Mt. 3.7//Lk. 3.7), a
baptism apparently connected with 'repentance' (Mt. 3.8//Lk.
3.8).

1 52 The Synoptic Problem

(d) Jesus appears on the scene and there is a baptism involving
the 'spirit' in which Jesus is recognized as a 'son' (Mt. 3.13-
17//Lk. 3.21-22).

(e) Jesus is led into the wilderness by 'the spirit' to be tested as
'son'(Mt. 4.1-1 1//Lk. 4.1-13).

(f) Jesus appears in a place called 'Nazara' (Mt. 4.13//Lk. 4.16).

(g) Jesus preaches a great Sermon (Mt. 5-7//Lk. 6.20-49).

(h) Jesus finishes his Sermon and goes to Capernaum where a
Centurion's Boy is healed (Mt. 7.28-29; 8.5//Lk. 7.1).

(i) Messengers come fi*om John the Baptist, asking whether Jesus
is indeed 'the coming one' (Mt. 11.2-19//Lk. 7.18-35).'^

One of the most interesting features of this is that it seems to be a
narrative sequence — each event clearly proceeds from the previous
one. John appears, preaches about his baptism, prophesies 'the coming
one', who then appears, is baptized in connection with the 'spirit' as a
'son', is then led by the 'spirit' to be tested as a 'son' and so on. This is
problematic for the Q theory in two ways. First, it contradicts the
assertion that Q is a 'Sayings Gospel' or 'sayings source' without
narrative frame. An extant example of a genuine 'Sayings Gospel' has
come to light this century, the Gospel of Thomas, a full copy of which
was discovered in Nag Hammadi, Egypt, in 1945. The disappointing
news for the Q theory is that the document looks nothing like Q as it is
commonly reconstructed. Thomas is quite lacking in the kind of
ordered arrangements that characterize Q, especially the all-important
narrative sequence in Q's first third. Thus, far from corroborating the
existence of documents like Q, the blatant contrast between Thomas
and Q gives one major pause for thought.

This contrast is intensified by the fact that it finds a ready explana-
tion on the Farrer Theory. Q's narrative sequence makes sense when

13. Please note that 1 am not here maximizing material that might be attributed
to Q. Rather, I have only mentioned material that is agreed to belong to Q by the
hitemational Q Project, whose critical text of Q is the end result of over ten years of
hard work by experts in the area. For example, the sharp eye will notice that items
(a) to (e) are partly 'Mark-Q overlap' material discussed above. In deference to the
experts, I have only included Mark-Q overlap material that occurs in the Interna-
tional Q Project's critical text. See James M. Robinson, Paul Hoffmann and John S.
Kloppenborg (eds.). The Critical Edition of Q: Synopsis Including the Gospels of
Matthew and Luke, Mark and Thomas, with English, German and French Transla-
tions ofQ and Thomas (Minneapolis, MN: Fortress Press; Leuven: Peeters, 2000).

6. 77?^ Case Against Q

153

one notices that it corresponds to the places at which Matthew departs
from Mark's basic order (in Mt. 3-1 1) and where Luke, in parallel, also
departs from that order (in Lk. 1-9). In other words, the narrative
sequence is generated by a feature in the structuring of the Gospels. On
the whole, Matthew departs regularly from Mark in the first third of his
Gospel (Mt. 3-11), restructuring and adding fresh material to the
Markan outline, but he is much more conservative with Mark's order in
his second two-thirds.

If a further indication was needed, we might notice that at least one
of the elements in this narrative sequence bears the unmistakable mark
of Matthew's hand:

Matthew 7.28-29: 8.5

Luke 7.1

And it came to pass that when

When Jesus had fulfilled all

Jesus had completed these words.

these sayings in the hearing of

the crowds were amazed at his

the people.

teaching... and when he had

entered into Capernaum, a

entered into Capernaum. And a

centurion came...

certain Centurion's Servant. . .

What is so striking about this narrative segue, absent of course from
Mark, is that it is well known as Matthew's own particular formula. It
is the form of words he uses every time he ends one of his five major
discourses, here (the Sermon on the Mount) and then again on these
four occasions:

Mt. 11.1: "After Jesus had finished instructed his twelve disciples...'

Mt. 13.53: "When Jesus had finished these parables...'

Mt. 19.1: 'When Jesus had finished saying these things...'

Mt. 26.1: 'When Jesus had finished saying all these things...'

In short, it seems that once again we can detect Matthew's hand in
what is nonnally held to be inaterial derived from Q. The narrative
sequence seen in the standard reconstructions of Q's first third is highly
congenial to the Farrer Theory but is problematic for Q.

Summary

The Q material seems to exhibit a narrative sequence, found
especially in the first third of the alleged document:

54 The Synoptic Problem

This contrasts with markedly with anything in the one extant

example we have of a Sayings Gospel, the Coptic Gospel of

Thomas.

It makes good sense on the assumption that it is generated by

Luke's use of non-Markan material in Matthew's Gospel, the

first third of which often departs from Mark.

Elements in the narrative sequence show the clear signs of

Matthew's redactional hand.

d. Editorial Fatigue

When we were looking at the Priority of Mark in Chapter 3 we found
one of the most decisive factors to be the phenomenon of 'editorial
fatigue'. There were places where Matthew and Luke seemed to have
made initial, characteristic changes to their Markan source, but had
then apparently lapsed into docile reproduction of that source, resulting
in some minor incongruities. Now it is revealing that the same phe-
nomenon also seems to occur in the Double Tradition, revealing
because it is always in the same direction, in favour of Luke's use of
Matthew. As usual, illustration will be the best form of explanation, so
let us have a look at a good example, the Parable of the Talents/Pounds
(Mt. 25.14-30//Lk. 19.11-27).

When I was at school, the Matthaean version of this parable was
always the one read in assembly, partly because it had the desired word
'talent' in it (we needed to be encouraged to 'use our talents', that is, to
play in the school band, to act in the school play or to play for the
school football team), but also because it is the simpler, more coherent,
easier to follow version. There are three servants; one receives five
talents, one two and the other one. The first makes five more talents and
is rewarded, the second two more and is rewarded; the other hides his
talent and is punished.

By contrast, the Lukan version begins with ten servants, all of whom
receive one pound. It is an adjustment typical of Luke, the evangelist
most fond of the ratio often to one (ten coins, one lost in Lk. 15.8-10;
ten lepers, one thankful, in Lk. 17.1 1-17, and so on). However, when
the nobleman returns, he summons the servants, and, instead of hearing
about the ten earlier mentioned, we hear about 'the first' (Lk. 19.16),
'the second' (Lk. 19.18) and amazingly, 'the other' (Greek ho heteros,
Lk. 19.20). It turns out, then, that Luke has three servants in mind, like
Matthew, and not ten after all. Further, in Luke's parable, the first two

6. The Case Against Q

155

servants receive 'cities' as their reward (19.17, 19), the first ten and the
second five, whereas in Matthew they are 'put in charge of much'
(25.21 , 23). Yet towards the end of the parable, Luke seems to corrobo-
rate not his own earlier story line but Matthew's:

Matthew 25.28

Luke 19.24

'So take the talent from him and
give it to him who has the ten
talents".

'Take the pound from him and
give it to him who has the ten
pounds".

The account lacks cohesion: the man in Luke actually has ten cities
now, so a pound extra is nothing and, in any case, he does not have ten
pounds but eleven (19.16: 'your pound made ten pounds more'; con-
trast Mt. 25.20).

Luke's version of the parable, then, does not hold together well and
there is a straightforward explanation to hand: Luke has atteinpted to
reframe Matthew's parable but editorial fatigue leads him to drift into
the story line of his Matthaean source, inadvertently betraying his
knowledge of Matthew.

Nor is this parable an isolated example — there are several clear cases
of Double Tradition material in which Luke appears to show editorial
fatigue in his copying of Matthew, as when he begins talking about the
Centurion's 'slave' (Greek doulos, Lk. 7.2; cf. 7.10) in contrast to
Matthew's Centurion's 'son' or 'servant' (Greek pais, Mt. 8.6), only
subsequently to drift into Matthew's wording {pais, Mt. 8.8//Lk. 7.7).
Or one might look at Lk. 9.5 in which Jesus speaks about when the
disciples leave 'that town'. No town has been mentioned in the previ-
ous verses, Lk. 9.1-6 (Mission Charge, cf. Mk 6.6b-13//Mt. 10.5-15). It
seems, then, that Luke has copied the words from Matthew (10.14),
who does have the appropriate antecedent (Mt. 10.11, 'and whatever
town or village you enter...').

It could, of course, be the case that Luke is simply fatigued in such
cases with a Q source better represented by Matthew. The difficulty
with this idea, however, is that it seems impossible to find reverse
examples, cases where Matthew has apparently become fatigued with
Q, something that would be very odd given his clear tendency to
become fatigued in his copying of Mark (see above. Chapter 3). This is
more evidence, then, that the Double Tradition material is due not to
Matthew's and Luke's independent copying of Q but rather to Luke's
use of Matthew.

1 56 The Synoptic Problem

Summary

Just as there appear to be cases where Matthew and Luke
become fatigued in their versions of Triple Tradition (copying
from Mark), so too there appear to be cases where Luke
becomes fatigued in his copying of material in the Double
Tradition.

Since there are no counter-examples of apparent Matthaean
fatigue in Double Tradition material, the obvious explanation
is that Luke becomes fatigued not with Q but with Matthew.

4. Conclusion

a. Summary

As we draw to the end of our journey through the maze, in this, that
longest chapter so far, we have looked at the case against the existence
of Q. This has been a two-part process:

(a) The standard arguments for existence of Q appear to be
inadequate — indeed close consideration of them in each case
leads us directly to the plausibility of Luke's use of Matthew:
1 . Luke 5 order: It is commonly said that Luke's order of Double
Tradition material is inexplicable on the assumption that he
has taken this material from Matthew. However, this runs into
the following difficulties:

• Dubious value judgments: The standard argument assumes
that Matthew's arrangement of Double Tradition, with its
lengthy discourses, is preferable to Luke's with its empha-
sis on narrative movement, but this is an unnecessary,
subjective assumption.

• Redaction-criticism of Luke 's use of Mark: Luke treats
Matthew's lengthy discourses in the same way that he
treats Mark's discourses: he keeps some, omits some and
redistributes the rest.

• Narrative-criticism of Luke: This helps us to dispense with
the idea that Matthew's arrangements are superior to
Luke's — Luke's rearrangements make excellent narrative-
critical sense.

• Luke's preface: Luke 1.1-4 implies a critical attitude to his
predecessors' order. This critical attitude makes good

6. The Case Against Q 157

sense on the assumption that Luke is woricing with
Matthew as well as Mark.

• Markan Priority: If Luke has known Mark for longer than
he has known Matthew, this may well have encouraged
him to prioritize its order over Matthew's.

2. Luke's ignorance of Matthew's additions to Mark: this argu-
ment runs into insurmountable problems:

• Strength of evidence: The examples given are not strong
enough to make the case. Luke's omissions are quite
natural when one looks at them in line with his redactional
interests.

• Fallacious argument: The argument is based on a fallacy:
wherever Luke features Matthew's additions to Mark,
these are placed in the category 'Mark-Q overlap' and
ignored for the purposes of this argument.

3. Luke's lack of 'M' material: Luke lacks Matthew's Special
Material by definition — where Matthew's non-Marcan mate-
rial appears in Luke, it is called 'Double Tradition'. Further:

• Matthew 's Birth Narrative: There are signs that Luke
knows the narrative even though he does not utilise it
extensively.

• 'A/' material: The 'M' material all looks like 'Luke-
displeasing' material, just what we would expect on the
Farrer Theory.

4. Alternating Primitivity: A phenomenon that can be explained
in the following steps:

• Lukan secondariness: There are many places where all
agree that Luke is secondary.

• Matthaean language: The presence of Matthew's favourite
expressions in Q material is regularly taken to indicate that
his versions are later than Luke's versions. But the same
evidence is congenial to the thesis that Luke is using Matt-
hew: Matthew composes the non-Markan material using
characteristic expressions and Luke sometimes eliminates
such expressions. Moreover, Luke has a much larger
vocabulary than Matthew and he uses many more unusual
expressions. It is a fallacy to assume that 'un-Lukan'
expressions are necessarily 'pre-Lukan' expressions.

158 The Synoptic Problem

• Neglected arguments for Lukan secondariness: Sometimes
scholars have drastically underestimated the arguments for
Luke's redaction of Matthew (e.g. the Beatitudes).

• Oral tradition: The living stream of oral tradition did not
dry up as soon as the evangelists set pen to papyrus. Just
as Matthew creatively interacted with Mark in the light of
oral traditions, so too did Luke with Matthew and Mark.

5. The Distinctiveness of Q: Here the following points are rele-
vant:

• Isolation of Double Tradition from its context: this isola-
tion of the Double Tradition from its context in Matthew
and Luke inevitably generates a distinctive profile for Q.

• Overlap between Q and M: this overlap between Q
material and M material partly undermines the claim.

• L Material: it is difficult to discover good candidates for
material that might have derived from Q among Luke's
special material.

• A Distinctive Profile: the Double Tradition has a distinc-
tive profile on the Farrer Theory, namely (Matthew minus
Mark) divided by 'Luke-pleasingness'.

6. 77?^ Redaction-critical Argument:

• Association with Markan Priority: Q is allowed to gain
credibility by association with Markan Priority, for which
this argument is more legitimately used.

• Flexibility of Q: As an hypothetical document, Q has a
degree of flexibility that gives it an unfair advantage.

• Redaction-criticism: Since Q is reconstructed by means of
Redaction-Criticism, it is circular to argue in favour of Q
on the basis of redaction-criticism.

• Entrenchment: an inevitable entrenchment of Q occurs the
more it is assumed.

(b) Direct evidence: There is direct evidence for Luke's use of
Matthew, evidence that on the whole has been ignored or
explained away:
1 . Minor Agreements between Matthew and Luke against Mark:
These seem to point to Luke's knowledge of Matthew in the
Triple Tradition material:

6. 77?^ Case Against Q 159

• Passion Narrative: Strong Minor Agreements occur in tlie
Passion Narrative, wliere no one can appeal to influence
from Q.

• Matthew 's Style: Several Minor Agreements show the
marks of Matthew's distinctive style, suggesting that he
was the composer of this material.

2. Major Agreements between Matthew and Luke against Mark:
Although commonly placed in a category of their own labelled
'Mark-Q overlap', the difficulty these passages pose for the Q
theory should not be underestimated:

• Contradiction: They contradict the assertion that Luke
never features Matthew's modifications of Mark in Triple
Tradition material.

• Continuum: They illustrate the mid point on a continuum
of Luke's use of Matthew and Mark, from greater (pure
Double Tradition) to lesser (Triple Tradition).

3. Narrative Sequence in the Q material: This is found
especially in the first third of the alleged document:

• Contrast with Thomas: The narrative sequence contrasts
with anything found in the one extant example we have of
a Sayings Gospel, the Coptic Gospel of Thomas.

• Non-Markan narrative in Matthew: The narrative sequence
makes good sense on the assumption that it is generated by
Luke's following the non-Markan material in Matthew, the
first third of which oft;en departs from Mark.

• Matthew 's Redactional Hand: Elements in the narrative
sequence show the clear signs of Matthew's redactional
hand.

4. Editorial fatigue:

• The Double Tradition: Just as there appear to be cases
where Matthew and Luke become fatigued in their versions
of Triple Tradition (copying from Mark), so too there
appear to be cases where Luke becomes fatigued in his
copying of material in the Double Tradition.

• No Counter-Examples: Since there are no counter-exam-
ples of apparent Matthaean fatigue in Double Tradition
material, the obvious explanation is that Luke became
fatigued not with Q but with Matthew.

160 The Synoptic Problem

b. Occam 's Razor

Having earlier accepted the theory of Marican Priority as by far the best
explanation of much of the data, we find at the end of this chapter that
we are left with two competing theories that build on Markan Priority
in order to explain the remainder of the data. We have a problematic
theory in which the existence of an hypothetical document, Q, is
postulated, and an unproblematic one in which it is not. Under such
circumstances, we are left with little choice but to appeal to an old
principle known as Occam 's Razor. The British mediaeval philosopher
William of Occam suggested a fine working principle: that entities
should not be multiplied beyond what is necessary.'"* In other words,
there is no point in continuing to appeal to an hypothetical document to
explain data that is better explained without it. Or to put it another way,
the plausibility of the theory of Luke's use of Matthew enables us to
dispense with Q.

Many scholars naturally balk at this suggestion because Q has been
an important part of the landscape of New Testament scholarship for a
long time. A great deal has been staked in Q. Books and articles con-
tinue to be produced in abundance. Scholars continue to appeal to Q to
help them to reconstruct the life of the historical Jesus and to explore
Christian origins. But attachment to the familiar because it is familiar,
and fondness for an entity that has been honoured by time, should play
no role in helping us to make our mind up about the Synoptic Problem.
If the evidence demands that we dispense with Q, then that is what we
will have to do.

There are, however, important compensations that make taking leave
of Q worth the pain that is inevitably generated by the break-up. For
one thing, it enables us to be people of the twenty-first century. It is
arguable that Q belongs to another age, an age in which scholars solved
every problem by postulating another written source. The evangelists
were thought of as 'scissors and paste' men, compilers and not com-
posers, who edited together pieces from several documents. Classically,
the bookish B.H. Streeter solved the Synoptic Problem by assigning a
written source to each type of material — Triple Tradition was from
Mark; Double Tradition was from 'Q'; special Matthew was from 'M'
and special Luke was from 'L'. It is now rare to see scholars appealing

14. The Latin formulation is enlia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem,
'entities should not be multiplied without necessity'.

6. The Case Against Q 161

to written 'M' and 'L' documents. Perhaps at last the time has come to
get up to date, and to dispense with Q too.

This brings with it the advantage to which we have alluded several
times in this chapter, that dispensing with Q allows us to appreciate the
evangelists' literary ability. Q has caused many scholars to be unduly
obsessed with the isolation of the precise wording of Matthew's and
Luke's hypothetical source, leading them away from a full appreciation
of the way in which they creatively interacted with Mark, the Hebrew
Bible and the living stream of oral tradition. The impediment provided
by Q to the proper appreciation of Luke's literary ability is felt particu-
larly strongly. His distinctive ordering of the Double Tradition material
has traditionally been explained on the assumption that he was conser-
vatively following a Q text. But, as we have begun to see, it is quite
conceivable that Luke should have imaginatively and creatively re-
ordered material from Matthew. Luke avoids his predecessor's more
rigid, thematic approach in order to develop a plausible, sequential
narrative of the events he sees as having been fulfilled in the midst of
his readers.

Chapter 7
EMERGING FROM THE MAZE

The journey is almost over. It is time to emerge from the maze. Let us
review our way through it.

1 . Preliminaries

The fundamental presupposition for the study of the Synoptic Problem
is that there is a distinction between Matthew, Mark and Luke, on the
one hand, and John, on the other. Once one has aiTanged Matthew,
Mark and Luke in a Synopsis, these Synoptic Gospels can be seen to
have a literary interrelationship. The Synoptic Problem is all about
working out precisely what kind of relationship is involved.

2. Types of Material

The use of the Synopsis enables one to work out the different kinds of
material present in the Synoptic Gospels. Broadly speaking, there are
four different kinds of material: Triple Tradition (shared by Matthew,
Mark and Luke), Double Tradition (shared by Matthew and Luke
alone). Special Matthew (material only in Matthew) and Special Luke
(material only in Luke). To arrive at a solution to the Synoptic Prob-
lem, one needs to account plausibly for the origins of these different
strands of material, especially the material shared by two or more
Gospels. The common explanation for the origin of Triple Tradition is
the theory of Markan Priority, the idea that Mark was the first of the
Gospels to have been written and that it was used by both Matthew and
Luke, who in this material copied from Mark.

3 . Markan Priority

For a variety of reasons, Markan Priority emerges as the most plausi-
ble, major element in the solution to the Synoptic Problem. Its main

7. Emerging from the Maze 163

rival, the theory of Markan Posteriority (the Grieshach Theory),
whereby Marie malces direct use of both Matthew and Lulce, is less
plausible. Markan Posteriority, for example, requires Mark to have
made substantial omissions of congenial material from Matthew and
Luke at the expense of adding material of an almost banal clarificatory
nature, additions that do not seem consonant with his concern else-
where to create a darkly ironic, mysterious narrative. Mark has too
many 'harder readings' for Markan Posteriority to be plausible, and
where there are indications of dates, the indications are that Matthew
and Luke postdate the fall of Jerusalem in 70 Ci;, whereas Mark does
not. There seem, further, to be clear cases of Matthew and Luke becom-
ing 'fatigued' in their copying of units from Mark, making characteris-
tic changes at the beginning of pericopae and not managing to sustain
such changes throughout.

4. Two-Source Theory or Farrer?

But once one has decided in favour of Markan Priority, one needs to
ask a second key question: Did Matthew and Luke use Mark independ-
ently of one another or are there signs that one of them also knew the
other? The standard position, The Two-Source Theory, maintains that
Matthew and Luke were indeed independent of one another. This
means that the only possible explanation for the Double Tradition mate-
rial, in which there is major agreement between Matthew and Luke, is
that they were both dependent on an otherwise unknown source, for
convenience called Q. However the standard arguments for the Q
hypothesis are weak, and the Farrer Theo/y, which maintains both
Markan Priority and Luke's knowledge of Matthew, is preferable.

It is commonly said, for example, that Luke's order of the Double
Tradition material is inexplicable on the assumption that he has taken it
from Matthew. But such a perspective does not take seriously Luke's
desire to interweave sayings material with narrative in order to create a
plausible, sequential account, rather than to have gigantic monologues
of the kind Matthew favours. To give another example, it is commonly
said that Luke shows no knowledge of any of the Matthaean additions
to Mark in Triple Tradition material, something that is manifestly not
the case. Matthew's additions to John the Baptist's preaching, for
example, with their characteristic Matthean emphases, are reproduced
verbatim in Luke.

164 The Synoptic Problem

Indeed, the value of the Fairer Theory is that it is able to point to
strong evidence that Luke knew not only Mark but also Matthew's
version of Mark. Both the Minor Agreements and the Major Agree-
ments between Matthew and Luke against Mark (the Major Agreements
are more commonly called 'Mark-Q overlap') are thorns in the side of
the Q theory, for they seem to present evidence that Luke knows
Matthew's specific modifications of the Markan material. Where Jesus
is being mocked, in Mark he is simply told to 'Prophesy!' (Mk 14.65),
a darkly ironic taunt from those who are in the very act of fulfilling
Jesus' prophecy that he will be struck and spat upon. Matthew typically
explicates and simplifies the ironic scene by adding a five word
question, 'Who is it who smote you?', and he is followed by Luke, as
clear a sign as one could want that Luke knows Matthew.

Further, the Farrer Theory explains plausibly elements of editorial
fatigue that appear in Luke over against Matthew, like the disappear-
ance of seven of Luke's ten servants in the Parable of the Pounds. And
it makes good sense of the clearly traceable narrative sequence that
makes up the early part of the Double Tradition in both Matthew and
Luke, a narrative sequence that contradicts the standard characteriza-
tion of 'Q' as a 'Sayings Gospel', and which presupposes elements in
the Triple Tradition, a sign that the material was crafted by someone
like Matthew for this very narrative context.

5. What Makes a Good Solution?

The ideal solution to the Synoptic Problem is one that is able explain
the origin and nature of all three Synoptics in the most plausible way.
The solution proposed here helps one to reflect critically on the growth
of the Gospel genre and the development of early Christianity. If one
assumes the Farrer Theory, whereby Mark writes first, Matthew writes
in interaction with Mark and Luke writes in interaction with both, the
following, plausible scenario emerges. Of all the Gospels, Mark's is the
one that makes the most sense as standing at the genesis of the Gospel
genre. If Mark's Gospel was written first, he was the first to forge
together oral traditions concerning the life of Jesus into a story begin-
ning with John the Baptist and culminating with the Passion and Resur-
rection. Mark was therefore generated by the evangelist's desire to
marry disparate materials concerning Jesus' life with his fervent belief,
no doubt influenced by acquaintance with Paul and Paulinism, that the

7. Emerging from the Maze 165

Crucified Christ is the heart of the good news about Jesus Christ, which
should be at the centre of Christian faith.

Matthew partly embraces and partly reacts against Mark. It is the first
attempt to 'fix' what he sees as lacking, both in content and outlook, in
Mark's Gospel, thus 'drawing from the treasure both new and old' (Mt.
13.52). Matthew thus reinscribes Jesus' Jewish identity, making much
more explicit use of the motif of Old Testament fulfilment, enhancing
the role of Jesus the teacher, systematically explicating and ironing out
the Markan oddities, and adding a birth and infancy narrative at one
end and more resurrection material at the other end.

Luke, who has already known Mark for some years, comes across a
copy of Matthew and can see immediately what it is — an attempt to
'fix' Mark in the ways just mentioned. This provides Luke with a
catalyst — it gives him the idea of trying to improve on Mark himself,
imitating Matthew's grand plan but at the same time attempting to
better it. Thus Luke, like Matthew, writes a new version of Mark,
making it a similar length to Matthew's Gospel, framing it in the same
way, with birth narratives at the beginning and resurrection stories at
the end, and in between adding a substantial amount of sayings
material as well as some more fresh narrative. As Luke, like Matthew,
attempts to fix Mark, he utilizes many of Matthew's own materials to
do the job, especially the rich quarry of sayings material. But not for
Luke are huge monologues like the Sennon on the Mount. He is
attempting to write a plausible, sequential narrative of 'the events that
have been fulfilled among us' (1.1) and this means avoiding Matthew's
wooden structures, instead choosing to interweave deeds and sayings
and to create a feeling of movement and progress, a progress that is not
halted until, at the end of his second volume (the Acts of the Apostles),
Paul is in Rome.

The advantage that the Farrer Theory has over its rivals is that it can
provide a strong reason for the genesis of each of the Synoptic Gospels.
The Synoptics turn out not only to provide source material for one
another, Mark for Matthew and both for Luke, but also to be catalysts
for one another, Mark for Matthew and both for Luke. Mark makes
good sense as the first Gospel; Matthew makes good sense on the
assumption that it represents a reaction against, and to some extent an
embracing of, Mark. Luke makes fine sense on the assumption that it
imitates but also improves on Matthew, utilizing some of his very
material. By contrast, the other major theories have difficulties here.

166 The Synoptic Problem

The Griesbach Theory struggles to explain the genesis of Mark on the
assumption that the evangelist is conflating Matthew and Luke — it is
not easy to see why, on this theory, Mark would have written this book,
and why, having chosen to write it, he creates a book that is so ill at
ease with its own editorial policy, sometimes pushing in one direction,
sometimes going in another. Likewise, the Two-Source Theory has
trouble explaining how Matthew and Luke independently came up with
the same plan at the same time but in ignorance of one another, both
deciding to produce a fresh version of Mark, of the same length,
framed in the same way, adding much of the same substance, oft;en
making similar alterations. Of course it is possible that they did indeed
hit on the same plan at just the same time, but all in all it is not as
satisfactory or as plausible a theory as one that assumes that one was
the direct catalyst for the other. In the end, we should settle for the
theory that has the fewest problems.

6. 77?^ Future

What, though, is the future for the study of the Synoptic Problem? Will
it be abandoned by scholars who see it as too complex and too dull or
is there hope for a brighter future? While making predictions is danger-
ous, there are several avenues that might be explored further, which
suggests that there are still reasons to be optimistic. First, it would be
encouraging to see scholars dispensing with wooden models in which
the evangelists remain scissors-and-paste people in favour of a proper
appreciation of their literary abilities. This goal may be on its way to
being achieved in that recent years have seen many useful literary-
critical appreciations of individual Gospels. The rise of the discipline
known as 'narrative-criticism', whereby a book's narrative is carefiilly
analysed on its own terms, without recourse to theories about seams
and sources, can only help scholars of the Synoptic Problem to pay
more attention to the literary artistry that is such a major element in the
Gospels, books that have, after all, enchanted generations of readers.

Second, recent scholarship has paid much more attention to the role
played by oral tradition in Christian origins. Where scholars in the past
have tended to paint the evangelists in their own image, as bookish
people writing in their studies, primarily using literary resources, future
scholars may well attempt to appreciate more accurately the way that
the evangelists dealt with their materials. If we take all the evidence

7. Emerging from the Maze 167

seriously, from Luke's Preface (Lk. 1.1-4) onwards, we cannot avoid
the conclusion that the evangelists were involved in a creative, critical
interaction with oral traditions as well as with literary sources.

Third, it would be a wonderful thing if interest in the Synoptic
Problem could be refreshed and so restored to a place of prominence
and interest within New Testament scholarship. In recent times it has
become stagnant, often regarded as one of the least exciting or profita-
ble areas to research or study. Yet some contemporary developments
within New Testament scholarship are highly congenial to a renais-
sance for the Synoptic Problem. The study of the New Testament in
film and fiction, for example, is now a topic of interest to New Testa-
ment scholars, and here there is fertile ground for interaction with
Synoptic Problem studies. Instead of engaging only with Luke's use of
Matthew, why not also look at Pier Paolo Pasolini's treatment of the
same source in the film The Gospel According to St Matthew? Who
knows? — fresh conversation partners might have fresh insights to bring.

Finally, one of the recent advances in historical Jesus study is the
attempt to push back canonical boundaries. The canonical Gospels,
Matthew, Mark, Luke and John, should not be privileged as historical
sources purely by virtue of their inclusion in the canon. Scholars are
now recognizing that they should at least be open to the possibility that
reliable material about the historical Jesus might be located in other,
non-canonical sources. It might also be a good idea to take non-
canonical sources seriously in the study of the Synoptic Problem, not
least because of the discovery in 1945 in Nag Hammadi, Egypt, of a
complete Gospel in Coptic with many parallels to the Synoptic Gospels,
a Gospel that must have been written by the end of the second century,
and that may well be earlier. The question of the dating and reliability
of Thomas as a source for very early Jesus material is controversial, but
one thing is clear — studying its parallels with the Synoptic Gospels is
rewarding and it may well end up shedding some fresh light on the
Synoptic Problem.

Whatever the future holds for the Synoptic Problem, though, it is
clear that it remains worthy of continued attention. Those who take
time to reflect on it find the Synoptic Problem an enormously reward-
ing and still crucial area of New Testament studies. Indeed, for as long
as it is called a 'problem' in need of a solution, scholars and students
will persist in talking to each other about Jesus, the Gospels and Chris-
tian origins, continuing a conversation that has already begun within

168 77?^ Synoptic Problem

the canon of the New Testament itself. For when we look at the
Gospels side by side, it is difficult to avoid asking fascinating questions
about the similarities and differences, the tensions and interactions,
between Mark, who gives us 'the beginning of the Gospel of Jesus
Christ' (Mk 1.1), Matthew, who 'draws from his treasure chest both the
new and the old' (Ml. 13.52) and Luke, who has 'investigated every-
thing carefully from the beginning' in order to reassure Theophilus of
'the truth concerning the things about which he has been instructed'
(Lk. 1 .1-4). Our choice is to ignore that conversation, taking refuge in a
harmonizing process that robs the texts of their individuality, or to take
the agreements and the disagreements seriously, engaging in a critical
discussion that has the potential not only to be educational but also, in
the end, to be ftin.

Internet Archive Audio

Featured

Top

Images

Featured

Top

Software

Featured

Top

Texts

Featured

Top

Video

Featured

Top

Mobile Apps

Browser Extensions

Archive-It Subscription

Save Page Now

Full text of "The synoptic problem : a way through the maze"

See other formats